



0' -'?»' 











'^' V^ ,^ /,5^h<' ^ ^^^ 














**'% 










\^ 

















**».^'* ^0 



\-/ .•^'- %.^ :Mik' \/ •'^^'- ""- -'^ 




•^«:SXW.k*- v> 









"5^ 












'•>.%^' 

.^'%. 








>iiirr. 






MR. WEBSTER'S AaNDICATION 



OF THE 



TREATY OP WASHINGTON OE ]842; 



IX A SPEECH 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



Ox THE 6tii and 7th of Aprii., 1846. 




WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
1846. 



ff 4" 



MR. WEBSTER'S VINDICATION 



OF THE 



TREATY OF WASHINGTON OE 1842; 



IN A SPEECH 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
On the 6th and 7th of April, 1846. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
1846. 



.W57S 



THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



Mr. WEBSTER rose and said: It is altogether unexpected to me, 
Mr. President, to find it to be my duty, here, and at this time, to de- 
fend the treaty of Washington of 1842, and the correspondence ac- 
companying the negotiation of that treaty. It is a past transaction. 
Four years have ahiiost elapsed since the treaty received the sanction 
of the Senate, and became the law of the land. While before the 
Senate, it was discussed with much earnestness and very great ability. 
For its ratification, it received the votes of five-sixths of the whole 
Senate — a greater majority, I believe I may say, than was ever be- 
fore found for any disputed treaty. From that day to this — although 
I had had a hand in tiie negotiation of llie treaty, and felt it to 
be a transaction with which my own reputation was intimately 
■connected, I have been willing to leave it to the judgment of the na- 
tion. There were, it is true, sir, some things of which I have not 
complained, and do not complain, but which, nevertheless, were 
subjects of regret. The papers accompanying the treaty were 
voluminous. Their publication was long delayed, waiting for the 
exchange of ratifications; and, when finally published, they were not 
distributed to any great extent , or in large numbers. The treaty, mean- 
time, got before the public surreptitiously, and, with the documents, 
came out by piece-meal. We know that it is unhappily true, that 
away from the large commercial cities of the Atlantic coast, there are 
few of the public prints of the country which publish oflicial papers 
-on such an occasion at large. I might have felt a natural desire, that 
the treaty and the correspondence could have been known and read by 
-every one of my fellow-citizens, from East to West, and from North to 
^outh. But it was impossible. Nevertheless, in returning to the Sen- 
ate again, nothing was farther from my purpose than to renew the 
-discussion of any of the topics discussed and settled at that time; and 



nothing farther from my expectation than to be called upon by any 
sense of duty to my own reputation, and to truth, to make, now,, 
any observations upon the treaty, or the correspondence. 

But ithasso happened that, in the debate on tbeOregon question, the 
treaty , and , I beheve , every article of it , and the correspondence accom- 
panying the negotiation of that treaty, and, I believe, every part of it,- 
have been the subject of disparaging, disapproving, sometimes contume- 
lious remarks, in one or the other of the Houses of Congress. Now,- 
with all my indisposition to revive past transactions and make them 
the subjects of debate here, and satisfied, and indeed highly gratified 
with the approbation so very generally expressed by the country, at 
the time and ever since, 1 suppose that it could hardly have been ex- 
pected, nevertheless .by any body , that I should sit here from day to day y, 
through the debate, and through the session, hearing statements, en- 
tirely erroneous as to matters of fact, and deductions from these sup- 
posed facts quite as erroneous, all tending to produce unfavorable un- 
pressions respecting the treaty, and the correspondence, and every 
body who had a hand in it — I say, it could hardly have been expect- 
ed by any body that I should sit here and hear all this, and keep my 
peace. The country knows that I am here. It knows what I have 
heard, again and again, from day to day; and if statements of fact,, 
wholly incorrect, are made here, in my hearing, and in my presence,. 
without reply or answer from me, why, shall we not hear ni all 
the contests of party and elections hereafter, that this is a fact, and that 
is a fact, because it has been stated where and when an answer could 
be given, and no answer was given ? It is my purpose, therefore, to 
give an answer here, and now, to whatever has been alleged against 
the treaty, or the correspondence. 

Mr. President, in the negotiation of 1842, and in the correspond- 
ence, I acted as Secretary of State under the direction, of course, of 
the President of the United States. But, sir, in niatters of high im- 
portance, I shrink not from the responsibility of any thing I have ever 
done under any man's direction. Wherever my name stands I am 
ready to answer it, and to defend that with which it is connected. I 
am here to-day to take upon myself — without disrespect to the Chief 
Magistrate under whose direction I acted — and for the purposes of this 
discussion, the whole responsibility of every thing that has my name~ 
connected with it, in the negotiation and correspondence. Sir, the treaty 



of Wa -lington was not entered into to settle any — or altogether for the 
purpose of sealing any — new, arising questions. The matters embraced 
in that treut , and in the correspondence accompanying it, had been in- 
teresting subjects in our foreign relations for fifty years— unsettled for 
fifty years— agitating and annoying the councils of the country, and 
ithreatning to disturb its peace for fifty years. And my first duty , then, in 
•entering upon such remarks as I think the occasion calls for in regard 
to one and all of these topics, will be, to treat the subjects in the first 
place, historically — to show when each arose — what has been its pro- 
gress in the diplomatic history of the country; and especially to show 
in what posture each of those important subjects stood at the time 
when William Henry Harrison acceded to the office of President of 
the United States. This is my purpose. I do not intend to enter 
-upon any crimination of gentlemen who have filled important situa- 
tions in the executive government in the earlier, or in the more recent, 
liistory of the country. But 1 intend to show, in the progress of this 
<liscussion, the actual position in Avhich things were left in regard to 
the topics embraced by the treaty, and the correspondence attending 
the negotiation of it, when the executive government devolved upon 
General Harrison, and his immediate successor, Mr. Tyler. 

Now, sir, the first of these topics is the question of the Northeastern 
Boundary of the United States. The general history of that question , 
from the peace of 1783 to this time, is known to all public men, of 
course, and pretty well understood by the great mass of well informed 
persons throughout the country. I shall state it briefly. 

In the Treaty of Peace of September, 1783, the northern and 
eastern, or, perhaps, more properly speaking, the northeastern boun- 
dary of the United States, is thus described, viz: 

"From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that angle which is formed by a line 
<irawn due north from the source of the St. Croix river to the highlands ; along the said 
highlands, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from 
those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
river; thence, along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude ; 
from thence, by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or 
Cataraquy. East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from 
its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, to its source, and from its source directly north to the 
•aforesaid highlands." 

Such is the description of the northeastern boundary of the United 
States, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783. And it is quite 



remarkable that so many embarrassing questions should have arisen 
from these few lines, and have been matters of controversy for more 
than half a century. 

The first disputed question was, ''Which, of the several rivers run- 
ning into the Bay of Fundy , is the St. Croix, mentioned in the trea- 
ty." It is singular that this should be matter of dispute, but so if 
was. England insisted that the true St. Croix was one riverj the- 
United States insisted it was another. 

The second controverted question was, ''Where is the northwest 
angle of Nova Scotia to be found?" 

The third, " What and where are the highlands, along which the 
line is to run, from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to the north- 
westernmost head of Connecticut river?" 

The fourth, "Of the several streams which, flowing together, make 
up Connecticut river, which is that stream, which ought to be regard- 
ed as its northwesternmost head?" 

The fifth was, "Are the rivers which discharge their waters into 
the Bay of Fundy, rivers 'which fall into the Atlantic ocean,' in the 
sense of (he terms used in the treaty?" 

The 5th article of the treaty between the United States and Great 
Britain, of the 19th of November, 1794, after reciting, that "doubts 
had arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the river 
St. Croix," proceeded to provide for the decision of that question, by- 
three commissioners, one to be appointed by each Government, and' 
these two to choose a third; or, if they could not agree, then each to 
make his nomination, and decide the choice by lot. The two com- 
missioners agreed on a third; the three executed the duty assigned 
them, decided what river was the true St. Croix, traced it to its 
source, and there established a monument. So much, then, on the 
eastern line was settled; and all the other questions remained wholly 
unsettled down to the year 1S42. 

But the two Governments continued to pursue the important and ne- 
cessary purpose of adjusting boundary diflSculties; and a convention^ 
was negotiated in London by Mr. Rufus King and Lord Hawkesbury, 
and signed on the 12th day of May, 1803, by the 2nd and 3d articles of 
which it was agreed, that a commission should be appointed, in the 
same manner as that provided for under the treaty of 1794, to wit: 
one commissioner to be appointed by England, and one by the United 



States, and these two to make choice of a third; or, if they could not 
agree, each to name the person he proposed, and the choice to be 
decided by lot; this third commissioner, whether appointed by choice 
or by lot, would, of course, be umpire or ultimate arbiter. 

Governments, at that day, in disputes concerning territorial bounda- 
ries, did not set out each with the declaration that the whole of its 
own claim was clear and indisputable; whatever was seriously dispu- 
ted they regarded, as in some degree, at least, doubtful or disputable; 
and, when they could not agree, they saw no indignity or impropriety 
in referring the dispute to arbitration, even though the arbitrator were 
to be appointed by chance, between respectable persons, named, sev- 
verally, by the parties. 

The commission thus constituted was authorized to ascertain and 
determine the northwest angle of Nova Scotia; to run and mark the 
line from the monument, at the source of St. Croix, to that north- 
west angle of Nova Scotia; and also to determine the northwestern- 
most head of Connecticut river; and then to run and mark the boun- 
dary line between the northwest angle of Nova Scotia and the said 
north westernmost head of Connecticut river; and the decision and 
proceedings of the said commissioners, or a majority of them, was 
to be final and conclusive. 

No objection was made by either Government to this agreement 
and stipulation; but an incident arose to prevent the final ratification 
of this treaty, and it arose in this way. Its fifth article contained an 
agreement between the parties settling the line of boundary bet\\'een 
them beyond the Lake of the Woods. In coming to this agreement 
they proceeded, exclusively, on the grounds of their respective rights 
under the treaty of 1TS3; but it so happened that, twelve days be- 
fore the convention was signed in London, France, by a treaty signed 
in Paris, had ceded Louisiana to the United States. This cession was 
at once regarded as giving to the United States new rights, or new 
limits, in this part of the continent. The Senate, therefore, struck 
this 5th article out of the convention; and as England did not incline 
to agree to this alteration, the whole convention fell. 

Here, sir, the whole matter rested till it was revived by the Treaty 
of Ghent, in the year 1814. And by the 5th article of that treaty it 
was provided, that each party should appoint a commissioner, and 
those two should have power to ascertain and determine the boundary 



8 

line, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence river, 
according to the treaty of 1783; and if these commissioners could 
not agree, they were to state their grounds of ditTerencC; and the 
subject was to be referred to the arbitration of some friendly Sover- 
eign or State, to be afterwards agreed upon by the two Governments. 
The two commissioners examined the boundary, explored the country, 
but could not agree. 

In the year 1823, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, nego- 
tiations'were commenced with a view of agreeing on an arbitration, and 
these negotiations terminated in a convention, which was signed in 
London, on the 29lh September, 1827, in the administration of Mr. 
Adams. By this time, collisions had aheady begun on the borders, 
notwithstanding it had been understood that neither party should ex- 
ercise exclusive possession pending the negotiation. Mr. Adams, in 
his message of December 8, 1827, after stating the conclusion of 
the convention for arbitration, adds : 

" While these conventions have been pending, incidents have occurred of conflicting 
pretensions, and of a dangerous character, upon the territory itself in dispute between 
the two nations. By a common understanding between the Governments, it was agreed 
that no exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by either party, while the negotiation was 
pending, should change the state of the question of right to be definitely settled. Such 
collision has, nevertheless, recently taken place, by occurrences the precise character of 
which has not yet been ascertained." 

The King of the Netherlands was appointed arbitrator, and he 
made his award on the 10th of January, 1831. This award was 
satisfactory to neither party; it was rejected by both , and so the whole 
matter was thrown back upon its original condition. 

This happened in the first term of Gen. Jackson's administration. 
He immediately addressed himself, of course, to new efforts for the 
adjustment of the controversy. His energy and diUgence have both 
been much commended by his friends; and they have not been dis- 
paraged by his opponents. He called to his aid, in the Department 
of State, successively, Mr. Van Buren, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McLane, 
and Mr. Forsythe. 

Now, Mr. President, let us see what progress General Jackson 
made, with the assistance of these able and skilful negotiators, in 
this higlily important business. Wiiy, sir, the whole story is told 
by reference to his several annual messages. In his fourth an- 
nual message, December, 1832, he says: ^' The question of our 



Northeastern Boundary still remains unsettled." In December, 
1833, he says: ^' The interesting question of our Northeastern Boun- 
dary remains still undecided. A negotiation, however, upon that 
subject, has been renewed since the close of the last Congress." In 
December, 1S34, he says: " The question of the Northeastern Boun- 
dary is still pending with Great Britain, and the proposition made la 
accordance with the resolution of the Senate for the establishment of 
a line according to the treaty of 1T83, has not been accepted by that 
Government. Believing that every disposition is felt on both sides to 
adjust this perplexing question to the satisfaction of all the parties in- 
terested in it, the hope is yet indulged that it may be effected on the 
basis of that proposition." In December, 1835, a similar story is re- 
hearsed: " In the settlement of the question of the Northeastern Boun- 
dary,' ' says President Jackson , ' ' little progress has been made . Great 
Britain has declined acceding to the proposition of the United States, 
presented in accordance with the resolution of the Senate, unless cer- 
tain preliminary conditions are admitted, which I deemed incompati- 
ble with a satisfactory and rightful adjustment of the controversy." 
And in his last message, the President gives an account of all his ef- 
forts, and all his success, in regard to this most important point in our 
foreign relations, in these words: " I regret to say, that many ques- 
tions of an interesting nature, at issue with other powers, are yet un- 
adjusted; among the most prominent of these, is that of the Northeast- 
ern Boundary. With an undiminished confidence in the sincere desire 
of his Britannic Majesty's Government to adjust that question, I am 
not yet in possession of the precise grounds upon which it proposes a 
satisfactory adjustment." 

With all his confidence, so often repeated, in the sincere desire of 
England to adjust the dispute, with all the talents and industry of his 
successive cabinets, this question, admitted to be the most i^rominent 
of all those on which we were at issue with foreign powers, had not 
advanced one step since the rejection of the Dutch award, nor did 
Gen. Jackson know the grounds upon which a satisfactory adjustrrtent 
was to be expected. All this is undeniably true; and it was all ad- 
mitted to be true by Mr. Van Buren when he came into office; for, in 
his first annual message, he says : 

"Of pending questions the most important is that which exists with the Government 
of Great Britain, in respect to our Northeastern Boundary. It is with unfeigned regret 



10 

that the people of the United States must look back upon the abortive efforts made by 
the Executive for a period of more than half a century, to determine what no nation 
should suffer long to remain in dispute, the true line which divides its possessions from 
those of other powers. The nature of the settlements on the borders of the United 
States, and of the neighboring territory, was for a season such, that this, perhaps, was 
not indispensable to a faithful performance of the duties of the Federal Government. 
Time has, however, changed the state of things, and has brought about a condition of 
affairs in which the true interests of both countries imperatively require that this ques- 
tion should be put at rest. It is not to be disguised that, with full confidence, often ex- 
pressed in the desire of the British Government to terminate it, we are apparently aa 
far from its adjustment as we were at the time of signing the treaty of peace, 1783." 
* # * "The conviction, which must be common to all, of the injurious consequen- 
ces that result from keeping open this irritating question, and the certainty that its final 
settlement cannot be much longer deferred, will, I trust, lead to an early and satisfactory 
adjustment. At your last session, I laid before you the recent communications between 
the two Governments, and between this Government and that of the State of Maine, in 
whose solicitude, concerning a subject in which she has so deep an interest, every por- 
tion of the Union participates." 

Now, sir J let us pause and consider tliis. Here we are, fifty-three 
years from the date of the Treaty of Peace, and the boundaries not 
yet settled. Gen. Jackson has tried his hand at the business for five 
years, and has done nothing. He cannot make the thing move. 
And why not? Do he and his advisers want skill and energy, or are 
there ditficulties in the nature of the case, not to be overcome till some 
wiser course of proceeding shall be adopted? Up to this time nol 
one step of progress has been made. This is admitted, and is, indeed, 
undeniable. 

Well, sir, Mr. Van Buren then began his administration under the 
deepest conviction of the importance of the question , in tlie fullest 
confidence in the sincerity of the British Government, and with the 
consciousness that the solicitude of Maine concerning the subject;, 
was a solicitude in which every portion of the Union participated. 

And now, sir, what did he do? What did he accomplish? 
What progress did he make? What step, forward, did he take, in 
the whole course of his administration? Seeing the full importance 
of the subject, addressing himself to it, and not doubting the just dis- 
position of England,! ask again, what did he do ? What did he do ? 
What advance did he make? Sir, not one step, in his whole four 
years. Or, rather, if he made any advance at all, it was an advance 
backward; for, undoubtedly, he left the question in a much worse 
condition than he found it, not only on account of the disturbances 



11 

and outbreaks which had taken place on the border^ for the want of 
an adjustment^ and which disturbances, themselves, had raised new 
and difficult questions, but on account of the intricacies, and com- 
plexities, and perplexities, in which the correspondence had become' 
involved. There was a mesh — an entanglement, which rendered iC 
far more difficult to proceed with the subject than if the question had 
been fresh and unembarrassed. 

I must now ask the Senate to indulge me in something more of 
an extended and particular reference to proofs and papers, than is in 
accordance with my general habits in debate; because I wish to pre- 
sent to the Senate, and to the country, the grounds of what I have 
just said. 

And let us follow the administration of Mr. Van Buren, from his 
first message, and see how this important matter fares in his hands. 

On the 20th of March, 1838, he sent a message to the Senate ;, 
with a correspondence between Mr. Fox and Mr. Forsythe. In this 
correspondence Mr. Fox says : 

"The United States Government have proposed two modes in which such a commis- 
sion might be constituted ; first, that it might consist of commissioners, named in equal 
numbers, by each of the two Governments, with an umpire to be selected by some 
friendly European power. Secondly, that it might be entirely composed of scientific 
Europeans, to be selected by a friendly sovereign, and might be accompanied, in its oper- 
ations, by agents of the two different parties, in order that such agents might give to the. 
commissioners assistance and information. 

♦ »♦***» 

Her Majesty's Government have, themselves, already stated that they have httle ex- 
pectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and that they would^ 
on that account, be disposed to object to it; and if Her Majesty's Government wereno\v 
to agree to appoint such a commission, it would only be in compliance with the desire, 
so strongly expressed by the Government of the United States, and in spite of doubts, 
which Her Majesty's Government still continue to entertahi, of the efficacy of the mea- 
sure." 

To this Mr. Forsythe replies, that he perceives, with feelings of 
deep disappointment, that the answer to the propositions of the United 
States is so indefinite, as to render it impracticable to ascertain, with- 
out further discussion, what are the real wishes and intentions of 
Her Majesty's Government. Here, then, a new discussion arises, 
to find out, if it can be found out, what the parties mean. Mean- 
time Mr. Forsythe writes a letter, of twenty or thirty pages, to the 
Governor of Maine, concluding with a suggestion that His Excellency 



should take measures to ascertain the sense of the State of Maine, 
with respect to the expediency of a conventional hne. Tliis corres- 
pondence repeats the proposition of a joint exploration, by commis- 
sioners, and Mr. Fox accedes to it, in deference to the wishes of the 
United States, but with very little hope that any good will come of it. 
Here is the upshot of one whole year's work. Mr. Van Buren 
sums it up thus, in his message of December, 1838: 

" With respect to the Northeastern Boundary of the United States, no official corres- 
pondence between this Government and that of Great Britain has passed since that 
•communicated to Congress towards the close of their last session. The offer to negoti- 
ate a convention for the appointment of a joint commission of survey and exploration, I 
am, however, assured will be met by Her Majesty's Government in a conciliatory and 
friendly spirit, and instructions to enable the British Minister here to conclude such an 
arrangement will be transmitted to him without needless delay." 

We may now look for instructions to Mr. Fox, to conclude an ar- 
rangement for a joint commission of survey and exploration. Sur- 
vey and exploration ! As if there had not already been enough of 
both ! But thus terminates 1838, with a hope of coming to an agree- 
ment for a survey ! Great progress this, surely. 

And now we come to 1839; and what, sir, think you, was the 
product of diplomatic fertility and cultivation, in the year 1839. Sir, 
the harvest was one project , and one counter project. 

On the 20th of May Mr. Fox sent to Mr. Forsythe a draught of a con- 
vention for a joint exploration, by commissioners, the commissioners 
to make report to their respective Governments. 

This was the British project. 

On the 29th of July Mr. Forsythe sent to Mr. Fox a counter pro- 
ject, embracing the principle of arbitration. By this, if the commis- 
sioners did not agree, a reference was to be had to three persons, 
selected by three friendly Sovereigns or States; and these arbitrators 
might order another survey. Here the parties, apparently fatigued 
with their efforts, paused; and the labors of the year are thus re- 
hearsed and recapitulated by Mr. Van Buren at the end of the season: 

" For the settlement of our northeastern boundary, the proposition promised by Great 
Britain for a commission of exploration and survey, has been received, and a counter 
project, including also a provision for the certain and final adjustment of the limits in 
dispute, is now before the British Government for its consideration. A just regard to 
the delicate state of this question, and a proper respect for the natural impatience of the 
State of Maine, not less than a conviction that the negotiation has been already pro- 
tracted longer than is prudent on the part of either Government, have led me to believe 



13 

that the present favorable moment should, on no account, be suffered to pass without 
putting the question forever at rest. I feel confident that the Government of Her Bri- 
tannic Majesty will take tlie same view of the subject, as I am persuaded it is governed 
by desires equally strong and sincere for the amicable termination of the controversy." 

Here, sir, in this '^delicate state of the question" all things rested^ 
till the next year. 

Early after the commencement of the warm weather, in 1S40, the 
industrious diplomatists resumed their severe and rigorous labors, and 
on the 22d June, 1840, Mr. Fox writes thus to Mr. Forsythe: 

"Tlie British Government and the Government of the U. S. agreed, two years ago, 
that a survey of the disputed territory, by a joint commission, would be the measure 
best calculated to elucidate and solve the questions at issue. The President proposed 
such a commission, and Her Majesty's Government consented to it; and it was believed 
by Her Majesty's Government, that the general principles upon which the commission 
was to be guided in its local operations had been settled by mutual agreement, arrived 
at by means of a correspondence which took place between the two Governments in 
1837 and 1838. Her Majesty's Government accordingly transmitted, in April of last 
year, for the consideration of the President, a draught of the convention, to regulate the 
proceedings of the proposed convention." 

"The preamble of that draught recited, textiially, the agreement that had been come 
to by means of notes v/hich had been exchanged between the two Governments; and the 
articles of the draught were framed, as Her Majesty's Government considered, in strict 
conformity with that agreement. 

" But the Government of the U. S. did not think proper to assent to the convention 
eo proposed. 

" The U. S. Government did not, indeed, allege that the proposed convention was at 
variance with the result of the previous correspondence between the two Governments; 
but it thought that the convention would establish a commission of 'mere exploratiort 
and survey;' and the President was of opinion that the step next to be taken by the two 
Governments should be to contract stipulations, bearing upon the face of them the pro- 
mise of a final settlement, under some form or other, and within a reasonable time. 

"The U. S. Government accordingly transmitted to the undersigned, for communica- 
tion to Her Majesty's Government, in the month of July last, a counter draught of conven- 
tion, varying considerably in some parts (as the Secretary of State of the U. S. admit- 
ted, in his letter to the undersigned of the 29th of July last) from the draught proposed 
by Great Britain." 

"There was, undoubtedly, one essential difference between the British draught and 
the American counter draught. 

"The British draught contained no provision embodying the principle of arbitration. 
The American counter draught did contain such a provision. 

"The British drauglit contained no provision for arbitration, because the principle of 
arbitration had not been proposed on either side during the negotiations upon which 
that draught was founded ; and because, moreover, it was understood, at that time, that 
the principle of arbitration would be decidedly objected to by the United States. But 
as the U. S. Government have now expressed a wish to embody the principle of ai"bi- 



14 

tration in the proposed convention, Her Majesty's Government are perfectly willing to 
accede to that wish. 

"The undersigned is accordingly instmcted to state, officially to Mr. Forsythe, that 
Her Majesty's Government consent to the two principles which form the main founda- 
tion of the American counter draught, namely: first, that the commission to be appoint- 
icd shall be so constituted as necessarily to lead to a final settlement of the questions of 
boundary at issue between the two countries; and, secondly, that, in order to secure 
such a result, the convention by which the commission is to be created, shall contain a 
provision for arbitration upon points as to which the British and American commission 
may not be able to agree. 

"The undersigned is, however, instructed to add, that there are many matters of de- 
toil in the American counter draught which Her Majesty's Government cannot adopt. 

" The undersigned will be furnished from his Government, by an early opportunity, 
■with an amended draught, in conformity with the principles above stated, to be submit- 
led to the consideration of the President. And the undersigned expects to be at the 
same time furnished with instructions to propose to theGovernment of the U. S. a fresh, 
local, and temporary convention, for the better prevention of incidental border collisions 
within the disputed territory during the time that may be occupied in carrying through 
the operations of survey or arbitration." 

And on the 26th of June Mr. Forsythe rephes, and says: 

"That he derives great satisfaction from the announcement that Her Majesty's Gov- 
'«rnment do not relinquish the hope that the sincere desire which is felt by both parties 
10 arrive at an amicable settlement, will at length be attended with success ; and from 
the prospect held out by Mr. Fox of his being accordingly furnished, by an early op- 
jportunity, with the draught of a proposition amended in conformity with the principles 
to which Her Majesty's Government has acceded, to be submitted to the consideration 
of this Government." 

On the 2Sth of July, 1840, the British amended draught came. 
This draught proposed that commissioners should be appointed, as 
•before, to make exploration; that umpires or arbitrators should be ap- 
pointed by three friendly sovereigns, and that the arbitration should sit 
in Germany, at Frankfort on the Maine. And the draught contains 
many articles of arrangement and detail, for carrying the exploration 
and arbitration into effect. 

At the same time Mr. Fox sends to Mr. Forsythe the report of two 
British commissioners, Messrs. Mudge and Fealherstonhaugh, who 
%ad made an ex parte survey in 1839. And a most extraordinary 
report it was. These gentlemen had discovered , that up to that time, 
nobody had been right; they run the line still farther south than any 
body had ever imagined, and discovered highlands which, in all pre- 
vious examinations and explorations, had escaped all mortal eyes. 

Here, then, we had o\\(t project more, for exploration and arbitra- 
tion, together with a report from the British commissioners of survey, 



15 

pushing the British claims still further into the territories of the State 
of Maine. 

And on the 13th of August, there comes again, as matter of course, 
from Mr. Forsythe, another counter project. Lord Palmerston is 
never richer in projects, than Mr. Forsythe is in counter pro- 
jects. There is always a Rowland for an Oliver. This counter 
project of the 13th of August, 1840, was drawn in the retirement of 
Albany. It consists of IS articles, which it is hardly necessary to 
describe particularly. Of course, it proceeds on the two principles 
already agreed on, of exploration and arbitration; but in all matters 
of arrangement and detail, it was quite different from Lord Palmer- 
ston's draught, communicated by Mr. Fox. 

And here the rapid march of diplomacy came to a dead halt. Mr. 
Fox found so many, and such great, changes proposed to the British 
draught, that he did not incline to discuss them. He did not believe 
the British Government would ever agree to Mr. Forsythe's plan, 
but he would send it home, and see what could be done with it. 

Thus stood matters at the end of 1840, and in his message, at 

the meeting of Congress in December of that year, his valedictory 

message, Mr. Yan Buren thus describes that condition of things, which 

he found to be the result of his four years of negotiation. 

" In my last annual message you were informed that a proposition for a commission 
of exploration and survey, promised by Great Britain, had been received, and that a 
counter project, including also a provision for the certain and final adjustment of the 
the limits in dispute, was then before the British Government for its consideration. 
The answer of that Government, accompanied by additional propositions of its own, 
was received through its minister here, since your separation. These were promptly 
considered ; such as were deemed correct in principle, and consistent with a due regard 
to the just rights of the United States and of the State of Maine, concurred in ; and the 
reasons for dissenting from the residue, with an additional suggestion on our part, com- 
municated by the Secretary of State to Mr. Fox. That minister, not feeling himself 
sufficiently instructed upon some of the points raised in the discussion, felt it to be his 
duty to refer the matter to his own Government for its farther decision." 

And now, sir, who will deny that this is a very promising condition 
of things, lo exist fifty-sevex years after the conclusion of the 
treaty! 

Here is the British project for exploration; then the American 
counter project for exploration, to be the foundation of arbitration. 
Next, (he answer of Great Britain to our counter project, stating divers 
exceptions and objections to it, and with sundry new and additional 



16 

propositions of her own. Some of these were concurred in, but 
others dissented from, and other additional suggestions on our part 
were proposed; and all these concurrences, dissents, and new sugges- 
tions were brought together and incorporated into Mr. Forsythe's last 
labor of diplomacy, at least his last labor in regard to this subject, his 
counter project of August the 13th, 1840. Tliat counter project was 
sent to England, to see what Lord Palmerston could make of it. It 
fared in the Foreign Office, just as Mr. Fox had foretold. Lord Pal- 
merston would have nothing to do with it. He would not answer it; 
he would not touch it; he gave up the negotiation in apparent despair. 
Two years before, the parties had agreed on the principle of joint 
exploration , and the principle of arbitration . But in their subsequent 
correspondence, on matters of detail, modes of proceeding, and sub- 
ordinate arrangements, they had, through the whole two years, con- 
stantly receded farther, and farther, and farther, from each other. They 
were flying apart; and, like two orbs, going off in opposite directions, 
could only meet after they should have traversed the whole circle. 

But this exposition of the casedoes not describe, byany means, all the 
difficulties and embarrassments arising from the unsettled state of the 
controversy. We all remember the troubles of 1839. Something 
like a border war had broke out. Maine had raised an armed civil 
posse; she fortified the line, or points on the line, of territory, to keep 
off intruders and to defend possession . There was Fort Fairfield , Fort 
Kent, and I know not what other fortresses, all memorable in history.. 
The legislature of Maine had placed eight hundred thousand dollars 
at the discretion of the Governor, to be used for the military de- 
fence of the State. Major General Scott had repaired to the frontier, 
and under his mediation, an agreement, a sort of treat)^, respecting the 
temporary possession of the two parties, of the territory in dispute,. 
was entered into between the Governors of Maine and New Bruns- 
wick. But as it could not be foreseen how long the principal dispute 
would be protracted, Mr. Fox, as has already been seen, wrote home 
for instructions for another treaty — a treaty of less dignity — a collate- 
ral treaty — a treaty to regulate the terms of possession, and the means 
of keeping the peace of the frontier, while the number of years should 
roll away, necessary, first, to spin out the whole thread of diplomacy 
in forming a convention; next, for three or four years of joint ex- 
ploration of seven hundred miles of disputed boundary in the wilder- 



17 

iiess of North America; and, finally, to learn the resuUs of an arbi- 
tration which was to sit at Frankfort on the Maine, composed of 
learned doctors from the German universities. 

Reallj; sir, is not this a most delightful prospect ? Is there not here as 
beautiful a labyrinth of diplomacy as one could wish to look at, of a 
summer's day? Would not Castlereagh and Talleyrand, Nesselrode 
and Metternich, find it an entanglement worthy the labor of their 
own hands to unravel? Is it not apparent, Mr. President, that at this 
time the settlement of the question, by this kind of diplomacy, if to 
-be reached by any vision, required telescopic sight? The country 
was settling ; individual rights were getting into collision ; it was im- 
possible to prevent disputes and disturbances; every consideration re- 
quired, that whatever was to be done should be done quickly; and 
yet every thing, thus far, had waited the sluggish flow of the cur- 
rent of diplomacy. Labitur et labctur. 

I have already stated, that on the receipt of Mr. Forsythe's last 
■counter plan , or counter project, Lord Palmerston , at last , paused . He 
did so. The British Government appears to have made up its mind that 
nothing was to be expected, at that time, from pursuing farther this 
battledore play of projets and contre projets. What occurred in 
England, we collect'from the published debates of the House of Com- 
mons. From these we learn, that after General Harrison's election, 
xind, indeed, after his death, and in the first year of Mr. Tyler's Pre- 
sidency. Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Fox as follows: 

" Her Majesty's Government received, witli very great regret, the second American 
counter-draught of a convention for determining the boundary between the United States 
and the British North American Provinces, which you transmitted to me last autumn, 
in you;- despatch of the 15lh of August, 1840, because that counter -draught contained so 
many inadmissible propositions, that it plainly shov/ed that Her Majesty's Government 
could entertain no hope of concluding any arrangement on this subject with the govern- 
ment of Mr. Van Buren, and that there was no use in taking any further steps in the 
negotiations till the new President should come into power. Her Majesty's Govern- 
ment had certainly been persuaded that a draught wliich, in pursuance of your instruction, 
you presented to Mr. Forsythc, on the 28tii of July, 1840, was so fair in its provision, 
and so well calculated to bring the differences, between the two Governments, about the 
boundary, to a just and satisfactory conclusion, that it would have been at once accepted 
by the Government of the United States; or that if the American Goverim^ent had pro- 
posed to make any alterations in it, those alterations would have related merely to mat- 
ters of detail, and would not have borne upon any essential points of the arrangement ; 
and Her Majesty's Government were the more confirmed in this hope, because almost 
all the main principles of the ai-rangement which that drauglit was intended to carry 



IS 

into execution, had, as Her Majesty's Government conceived, been either suggested by, 
or agreed to by, the United States Government itself." 

Lord Palmerston is represented to have said, in this despatch 
of Mr. Forsythe's counter project, that he '^cannot agree" to the pre- 
amble; that he "cannot consent" to the second article; that he "must 
object to the 4ih article;" that the "7th article imposed incompatible 
duties;" and to every article there was an objection, stated in a 
different form, until he reached the 10th, and that, as to that, "none 
could be more inadmissible." 

This was the slate of the negotiation, a few days before Lord Pal- 
merston's retirement. But, nevertheless, his Lordship would make 
one more attempt, now that there was a new administration here, 
and he would make '■'■ iieio proposals .^ ^ And what were they? 

"And whatdoes the House think," saidSirR. Peel, in the House of Commons, "were- 
the noble Lord's proposals in that desperate state of circumstances? The proposal of 
the noi)le Lord, after fifty-eight years of controversy, submitted by him to the Ameri- 
can Government for the purpose of a speedy settlement, was that commissioners should 
be nominated on both sides; that they should attempt to make settlement of this long 
disputed question; and then, if that failed, that the King of Prussia, the King of Sar- 
dinia, and the King of Saxony, were to be called in, not to act as umpires, but they 
■were each to be requested to name a scientific man, and that these three members of 
a scientific commission should proceed to arbitrate. Was there ever a proposition 
like this suggested for the arrangement of a question on whidi two countries had dif- 
fered for fifty-eight years? And this, too, was proposed after the failure of the arbi- 
tration on the part of the King of Holland, and when they had had their commission 
of exploration in vain. And yet, with all this, there were to be three scientific men^ 
foreign professors^ — one from Prussia, one from Sardinia, and one from Saxony ! To- 
do what ? And where were they to meet ; or how were they to come to a satisfactory 
adjustment?" 

It was asked in the House of Commons, not inaptly, what would 
the people of Maine think, when they should read that they were ta 
be visited by three learned foreigners, one from Prussia, one from 
Saxony, and one from Sardinia? To be sure; what would they 
think, when they should see three learned foreign professors, each 
speaking a dill'erent language, and none of them the English or Ame- 
rican tongue, among the swamps and morasses of Maine, in summer ,. 
or wading tlirough its snows in winter; on the Allagash, the Maca- 
davie, or among the moose deer, on the precipitous and lofty shores of 
Lake Pohemagamook — and for what? To find where the division 
was, between Maine and New Brunswick ! Instructing themselves,, 
by those labors, liiat they might repair to Frankfort on the Maine, and 



19 

there hold solemn and scientific arbitration on the question of a boun- 
dary line, in one of the deepest wildernesses of North America ! 

Sir, I do not know what might have happened, if this project 
had gone on. Possibly, sir, but that your country has called you 
to higher duties, you might now have been at Frankfort on the Maine,, 
the advocate of our cause before the scientific arbitration. If not 
yourself, some one of the honorable members here very probably 
would have been employed in attempting to utter tiie almost unspeak- 
able names, bestowed by the northeastern Indians on American lakes. 
and streams, in the heart of Germany. 

Mr. Fox, it is said, on reading his despatch, replied, with charac- 
teristic promptitude and good sense, ''^for God's sake save us from the 
philosophers. Have sovereigns, if you please, but no professional 
men." 

But Mr. Fox was instructed, as it now appears, to renew his exer- 
tions to carry forward the arbitration. ''Let us," said Lord Palmer- 
ston , in writing to him , " let us consider the American contre projet as ; 
unreasonable, undeserving of answer, as withdrawn from considera- 
tion, and now submit m}'^ original projet to Mr. Webster, the nevv^ 
Secretary of State, and persuade him it is reasonable." 

With all respect, sir, to Lord Palmerston, Mr. Webster was not to 
be so persuaded; that is to say, he was not persuaded that it was rea- 
sonable, or wise, or prudent to pursue the negotiation in this form, fur- 
ther. He hoped to live long enough to see the northeastern boun- 
dary settled; but that hope was faint, unless he could rescue the ques- 
tion from the labyrinth of projects and counter projects, explorations 
and arbitration, in which it was involved. He could not reasonably 
expect that he had another whole half century of life before him. 

Mr. President, it is true, that I viewed the case as hopeless, with- 
out an entire change in the manner of proceeding. I found the par- 
ties already "in wandering mazes lost." I found it quite as tedious 
and difficult to trace the thread of this intricate negotiation, as it 
would be to run out the line of the Highlands itself. One was quite 
as full as the other of deviations, abruptnesses, and perplexities. And 
having received the President's (Mr. Tyler's) authority, I did say to 
Mr. Fox, as has been stated in the British Parliament, that I was 
willing to attempt to settle the dispute by agreeing on a conventional 
line, or line by compromise. 



20 

Mr. President, I was fully aware of the difficuUy of the im- 
tiertaking. I saw it was a serious affair to call on Maine to 
come into an agreement, by which she might subject herself to the 
loss of territory which she regarded as clearly her own. The ques- 
tion touched her proprietary interests, and what was more delicate, it 
touched the extent of her jurisdiction. I knew well her extreme 
jealousy and high feeling on this point.* But I believed in her pa- 
triotism, and in her willingness to make sacrifices for the good of the 
country. I trusted, too, that her own good sense would lead her, 
while she, doubtless, preferred the strict execution of the treaty, as 
she understood it, to any line by compromise, to see, nevertheless, 
that the Government of the United States was already pledged to ar- 
bitration, by its own proposition and the agreement of Great Britain; 
that this arbitration might not be concluded and finished for many 
years, and that, after all, the result might be doubtful. With this re- 
liance on the patriotism and good sense of Maine, and with the sanc- 
tion of the President, I was willing to make an effort to establish a 
boundary by direct compromise and agreement — by acts of the par- 
ties themselves, which they could understand and judge of for them- 
selves — by a proceeding which left nothing to tiie future judgment of 
others, and by which the controversy could be settled in six months. 
And, sir, I leave it to the Senate to day, and the country always, to 
say, how far this offer and this effort were wise or unwise, statesman- 
like or unstatesmanlike, beneficial or injurious. 

Well, sir, in the autumn of 1841, it was known in England to be 
the opinion of the American Government, that it was not advisable 
to prosecute further the scheme of arbitration; that that Government 
was ready to open a negotiation for a conv'entional line of boundary; 
and a letter from Mr. Everett, dated on the 31st of December, an- 



* It is now well known, that in 1832, an agreement was entered into between some of 
the Heads of Departments at Washington, viz: Messrs. Livingston, McLane, and 
Woodbury, under the direction of President Jackson, on the part of the United States, and 
Messrs. Preble, Williams and Emery, on the part of the Government of Maine, by 
which it was stipulated that Maine should surrender to the United States the territory 
■ which she claimed beyond the line designated by the King of the Netherland.s, and re- 
ceive, as an indemnity, one million of acres of the public lands, to be selected by her- 
self, in Michigan. The existence of this treaty was not known for some time, and it was 
never ratitied by the high contracting parties. 



21 

nounced the determination of the British Government to send a spe- 
cial minister to the United States ;, authorized to settle all matters in 
difl'erence; and the selection of Lord Asliburton for that trust.* Tliis 
letter was answered, on the 29th of January, by an assurance that 
Lord Ashburton would be received with the respect due to his Gov- 
ernment and to himself.f Lord Ashburton arrived in Washington 
oh the 4th of April, 1842, and was presented to the President on 
the 6tb . 

On the 11th, a letter was written from the Department of State to 
the Governor of Maine, announcing his arrival, and his declaration 
that he had authority to treat for a conventional line of boundary, or 
hne by agreement, on mutual conditions, considerations, and equiva- 
lents .| 

The Governor of Maine was informed that , 

"Under these circumstances, the President had feh it to be his duty to call the serious 
attention of the Governments of Maine and Massachusetts to the subject, and to submit 
to those Governments the propriety of their co-operation, to a certain extent, and in a 
certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a controversy already of so long duration, and 
which seems very likely to be still considerably further protracted before the desired end 
of a final adjustment shall be attained, unless a shorter course of arriving at that end be 
adopted than such as has heretofore been pursued, and as the two Governments are still 
pursuing. 

"The opinion of this Government upon the justice and validity of the American 
claim has been expressed at so many times, and in so many forms, that a repetition of 
that opinion is not necessary. But the subject is a subject in dispute. The Government 
has agreed to make it a matter of reference and arbitration ; and it must fulfil that,agree- 
ment, unless another mode of settling the controversy should be resorted to with the 
hope of producing a speedier decision. The President proposes, then, that the Govern- 
ments of Maine and Massachusetts should severally appoint a commissioner or commis- 
sioners, empowered to confer with the authorities of this Government upon a conven- 
tional line, or line by agreement, with its terms, conditions, considerations, and equiva- 
lents, with an understanding that no Such line will be agreed upon, without the assent of 
such commissioners. 

"This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express assent beforehand, 
seems indispensable, if any negotiation for a conventional line is to be had; since, if hap- 
pily a treaty should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be submitted to the Se- 
nate of the United States for ratification." 

A similar letter was addressed to the Governor of Massachusetts. 
The Governor of Maine, now an honorable member of this House, 
immediately convoked the legislature of Maine, by proclamation. 

* Appendix I. t Appendix II. I Appendix III. 



22 

111 Massachusetts, the probable exigency had been anticipated, and 
the legislature had authorized the Governor, now my honorable col- 
league here, to appoint commissioners on behalf of the Common- 
wealth. The legislature of Maine adopted resolutions to the same 
effect, and duly elected four commissioners from among the most 
eminent persons in the State, of all parties; and their unanimous con- 
sent to any proposed line of boundary was made indispensable. 
Three distinguished public men, known to all parties, and having the 
confidence of all parties, in any question of this kind, were appoint-- 
•ed commissioners by the Governor of Massachusetts. 

Now, sir, I ask, could any thing have been devised fairer, safer, 
and better for all parties than this? The States were here, by their 
commissioners; Great Britain was here, by her special minister, and 
the Canadian and New Brunswick authorities within reach of the 
means of consultation; and the Government of the United States 
was ready to proceed with the important duties it had assumed. Sir, 
I put the question to any man of sense, whether, supposing the real 
object to be a fair, just, convenient, prompt settlement of the boun- 
dary dispute, this state of things was not more promising than all 
the schemes of exploration and arbitration, and all the tissue of pro- 
jects and counter projects, with which the two Governments had 
been making themselves strenuously idle for so many years? Nor was 
the promise not fulfilled. 

It has been said, absurdly enoug]i,that Maine was coerced into a con- 
sentto this line of boundary. Whatv^as the coercion? Where was the 
coercion? On the one hand, she saw an immediate and reasonable 
settlement; on the other hand, a proceeding sure to be long, and its 
result seen to be doubtful. Sir, the coercion was none other than 
the coercion of duty, good sense, and manifest interest. The right 
and the expedient united, to compel her to give up the wrong, the 
useless, the inexpedient. 

Maine was asked to judge for herself, to decide on her own inte- 
rests, not unmindful, nevertheless, of those patriotic considerations 
which should lead her to regard the peace and prosperity of the whole 
country. Maine, it has been said, was persuaded to part with a 
portion of territory by this agreement. Persuaded I Why, sir, she 
was invited here to make a compromise — to give and to take — to sur- 
render territory of very little value for equivalent advantages, of which 



23 

advantages she was herself to be the uncontrolled judge. Her commis- 
sioners needed no guardians. They knew her interest. They knew 
what they were called on to part with , and the value of what they could 
obtain in exchange. They knew especially that on one hand was im- 
mediate settlement, on the other, ten or fifteen years more of delay and 
vexation. Sir, the piteous tears shed for Maine, in this respect, are 
not her own tears. They are the crocodile tears of pretended friend-- 
ship and party sentimentahty. Lamentations and griefs have been 
uttered in this Capitol about the losses and sacrifices of Maine, which 
nine-tenths of the people of Maine laugh at. Nine-tenths of her 
people, to this day, heartjly appiove the treaty. It is my full belief 
that there are not, at this moment, fifty respectable persons in Maine 
who would now wish to see the treaty annulled, and the State re- 
placed in the condition in which it was^ with Mr. Van Buren's arbi- 
tration before it, and inevitably fixed upon it, by the plighted faith of 
this Government, on the.4th of March, 1841,. 

Sir, the occasion called for the revision of a very long lineof boun- 
■dary; and what complicated the case, and rendered it more ditlicult, 
was, that the territory on the side of the United States belonged to no 
less than four different States. The establishment of the boundary 
^vas to affect Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. 
All these States were to be satisfied, if properly they could be. Maine, 
it is true, was principally concerned. But she did not expect to re- 
tain all that she called her own, and yet get more; and still call it 
compromise, and an exchange of equivalents. Siie was not so ab- 
surd. I regret some things which occurred; particularly that while 
the commissioners of Maine assented, unanimously, to the boundary 
proposed, on the equivalents proposed, yet, in the paper in which 
they express that assent, they seem to argue against the act whicir 
ihey were about to perform. This, I think, was a mistake. It 
had an awkward appearance, and probably gave rise to whatever of 
dissatisfaction has been expressed in any quarter. 

And now, sir, I am prepared to ask whether the proceeding 
adopted, that is, an attempt to selUe this long controversy, by the as- 
sent of the States concerned, was not wise and discreet, under the 
circumstances of the case? Sir, the attempt succeeded , and it put an 
-end to a controversy which had subsisted, with no little inconvenience 
to the country, and danger to its peace, through every administration. 



24 

from that of General Washington to that of Mr. Van Buren. It is 
due to truth, and to the occasion, to say, tliat there were difficuUies 
and obstacles in the way of this settlement, which had not been over- 
come under the administration of Washington, or the elder AdamSy 
or Mr. Jefferson , or Mr. Madison, or Mr. JMonroe, or Mr. J. Q,. Adams, 
or GeneralJackson, or Mr. Van Buren. In 1842, in the adminis- 
tration of Mr. Tyler, the dispute was settled, and settled satisfactorily ► 
Sir, whatever may be said to the contrary, Maine was no loser, but 
an evident gainer, by this adjustment of boundary. She parted with 
some portion of territory ; this I would not undervalue; but certainly 
most of it was quite worthless. Capt. Talcot's report, and other evi- 
dence, sufficiently establish that fact.* 

Maine having, by her own free consent, agreed to part with this 
portion of terrritory, received, in the first place, from the Treas- 
ury of the United Stales, !|150,000, for her half of the land, a 
sum which I suppose to be much greater than she would have re- 
alized from the sale of it in fifty years. No person, well informed 
on the subject, can doubt this. 

In the next place, the United States Government paid her for the 
expenses of her civil posse to defend the State, and also for the sur- 
veys. On this account she has already received $200,000, and hopes 
to receive 80 or 100,000 dollars more. If this hope shall be realized, 
she will have received .'#450,000 in cash. 

But Maine I admit did not look, and ought not to have looked, to 
the treaty as a mere pecuniary bargain. She looked at other things, 
besides money. She took into consideration that she was to enjoy 
the free navigation of the river St. John's. I thought this a great 
object at the time the treaty was made; but I had then no adequate 
conception of its real importance. Circumstances which have since 
taken place show that its advantages to the State are far greater than 
I then supposed. That river is to be free to the citizens of Maine 
for the transportation down its stream of all unmanufactured articles 
whatever. Now, what is this river St. John's? We have heard a 
vast deal lately of the immense value and ijnportance of the river 
Columbiaand its navigation ; but I will undertake to say that, for allpur- 
po.sesof hun)an use, the St. John's is worth a hundred times as much 

♦Appendix IV. 



25 

• 

as the Columbia is, or ever will be. In point of magnitude, it is one of 
the most respectable rivers on the eastern side of this part of America. 
It is longer than the Hudson, and as large as the Delaware. And, 
moreover, it is a river which has a mouth to it, and that, in the opin- 
ion of the member from Arkansas, (Mr. Sevier,) is a thing of some 
importance in the matter of rivers. [A laugh.] It is navigable from 
tlie sea, and by steamboats, to a greater distance than the Columbia. 
Il runs through a good country, and its sources afford a communica- 
tion with the Aroostook valley. And I will leave it to the Member 
from Maine to say whether that valley is not one of the finest and 
most fertile parts of the State. And I will leave it not only to him, 
but to any man at all acquainted with the facts, whether this free 
navigation of the St. John's has not, at once, greatly raised the value 
of the lands on Fish river, on the Allegash, Madawasca, and the 
St. Francis. That whole region has no other outlet, and the value 
of the lumber which has, during this very year, been floated down 
that river, is far greater than that of all the furs which have descended 
from Fort Yancouvre to the Pacific. On this subject I am enabled 
to speak with authority, for it has so happened that, since the last 
adjournment of the Senate, I have looked at an official return of the 
Hudson's Bay Company , showing the actual extent of the fur trade in 
Oregon, and I find it to be much less than I had supposed. An in- 
telligent gentleman from Missouri estimated the value of tliat trade, 
on the west of the Rocky Mountains, at three hundred thousand dol- 
lars annually; but I find it stated in the last publication by Mr. Mc- 
Gregor, of the board of trade in England, (a very accurate authority,) 
that the receipts of the Hudson's Bay Company for furs west of the 
Rocky Mountains, in 1S28, is placed at ,^138,000. I do not know, 
though the member from Missouri is likely to know, whether all these 
furs are brought to Fort Vancouvre; or whether some of them are 
not sent through the passes in the mountains to Hudson's Bay; or to 
Montreal, by the way of the north shore of Lake Superior. I sup- 
pose this last to be the case. It is stated, however, by the same au- 
thority, that the amount of goods received at Vancouvre, and disposed 
of in payment for furs, is $20,000, annually, and no more. 

Now, sir, this right to carry lumber, and grain, and caule to the 
mouth of the river St. John's, on equal terms with the British, is a 
matter of great impoitance ; it brings lands lying on its upper 
branches, far in the interior, into direct comumnication with the sea. 



26 

• 

Those lands are valuable for timber now, and a portion of them are 
the best in the State for agriculture. The fact has been stated to me, 
on the best authority, that in the Aroostook valley land is to be found 
■which has yielded more than forty bushels of wheat to the acre, even 
under the common cultivation of new countries. I must, therefore, 
think that the commissioners from Maine were quite right in believing 
that this was an important acquisition for their State, and one worth 
the surrender of some acres of barren mountains and impenetrable 
swamps. 

But, Mr. President, there is another class of objections to this treaty 
boundary, on which I wish to submit a few remarks. It has been 
alleged, that the treaty of Washington ceded very important military 
advantages on this continent to the British Government. One of 
these is said to be ^ military road between the two provinces of New 
Brunswick and Lower Canada; arid the other is the possession of cer- 
tain heights, well adapted, as is alleged, to military defence. I think 
the honorable member from N. Y., farthest from the chair, (Mr. 
Dix,) said, that by the treaty of Washington, a military road was 
surrendered to England, which she considered as of vital importance 
to her possessions in America. 

Mr. Dix rose to explain. He had not spoken of a "^military road^'' 
but of a portion of territory affording a means of military communi- 
cation between two of her provinces. 

Mr. W. Well, it is the same thing, and we will see how that mat- 
ter stands. The honorable member says, that he said a means of 
military communication, and not a military road. I am not a mili- 
tary man, and therefore may not so clearly comprehend, as that mem- 
ber does, the difference between a military road and a means of mil- 
itary communication, [a laugh;] but I will read from the honorable 
member's speech., which 1 have before me, understood to have been 
revised by himself. The honorable member says: 

" The settlement of tlie northeastern boundary — one of the most delicate and difficult 
that has ever arisen between us — affords a striking evidence of our desire to maintain 
■with her the most friendly understanding. We ceded to her a portion of territory which 
she deemed of vital importance as a means of military communication between the Can- 
.adas and her Atlantic provinces, and which will give her a great advantage in a contest 
■with us. The measure was sustained by the constituted authorities of the country, and 
I have no desire or intention to call its wisdom in question. But it proves that we were 
not unwilling to afford Great Britain any facility she required for consolidating her North 
American possessions — acting in peace as though war was not to be expected between 



27 

the two countries. If we had cherished any ambitious designs in respect to them — if 
we had had any other wisli than that of continuing on terms of amity with her and 

them this great miUtary advantage would never have been conceded to her. 

"On the other hand, I regret to say, that her course towards us has been a course of 
perpetual encroachment. But, sir, I will not look back upon what is past for the purpose 
of reviving disturbing recollections." 

I should be very glad if the honorable gentleman would show how 
England derives- so highly important benefits from the treaty, in a 
military point of view, or what proof there is that she so considers 
the matter. 

Mr. Dix said that this treaty had been proclaimed by the President 
in the latter part of the year 1S42. Mr. D. had, at that time, left 
the country. The injunction of secrecy had been removed from the 
proceedings of the Senate in regard to the ratification. Although 
temporarily absent from the country, Mr. D. had not lost sight of the 
state of things at home. He read with interest the debates in the 
British House of Parliament in regard to the treaty, and he was 
struck with the fact, (and the debates would bear him out in the 
statement,) that distinguished public men deemed the acquisition 
of territory which had been gained, to be one of vital importance as 
a means of connexion and communication between their provinces 
in America. As to a military road, he had never traced its course 
upon the map; but he believed that it passed along the east bank of 
the St. John's until that river turned westward, and then along its 
north bank toward Q,uebec. But by the award of the King of Hol- 
land, the road would have had to run quite round the head of the 
river St. Francis. By that award, our boundary was to pass over 
the range of highlands, far to the north, and near the St. Lawrence 
river. But by the treaty of Washington, the line leaves those heights, 
and was so thrown back as to pass several miles farther to the east- 
ward. He had some notes here of the debates in Parliament, and as 
the gentleman had called upon him for his proof , Mr. D. would 
read a few extracts. Here Mr. Dix read sundry extracts from de- 
bates in the House of Commons, and said he thought they sustained 
his position. But he desired to say, that he had raised no question 
touching the wisdom of the provisions of the treaty, or made any 
reflections either on those who negotiated the Ircitiy , nor on those who 
ratified it. 

Mr. W. proceeded. The passages which the honorable member 



28 

has read, however pertinent they may be to another question, do not 
touch the question immediately before us. I understand, quite well, 
what was said of the heights; but nobody, so far as I know, ever 
spoke of this supposed military road or military connnunication, as of 
any importance at all, unless it be in a remark, not very intelligible, 
in an article ascribed to Lord Palmerston . 

I was induced to refer to this subject, sir, by a circumstance which 
I have not long been apprised of. Lord Palmerston (if he be the au- 
thor of certain publications ascribed to him) says that all the impor- 
tant points were given up by Lord Ashburton to the United States.' 
I might here state, too, that Lord Palmerston called the whole treaty 
"the Ashburton capitulation," declaring that it yielded everything 
that was of importance to Great Britain, and that all its stipulations 
were to the advantage of the United States, and to the sacrifice of the 
interests of England. But it is not on such general statements, and 
such unjust statements, nor on any oflT-hand expressions used in de- 
bate, though in the roundest terms, that this question must turn. He 
speaks of this military road, but he entirely misplaces if. The road 
which runs from New Brunswick to Canada follows the north side of 
the St. John's to the mouth of the Madawasca, and then turning 
northwest, follows that stream to Lake Tamariscotta,and thence pro- 
ceeds over a depressed part of the highlands till it strikes the St. Law- 
rence one hundred and seventeen miles below Quebec, This is the 
road which has been always used, and there is no other. 

I admit, it is very convenient for the British Government to pos- 
sess territory through which (hey may enjoy a road; it is of great 
value as an avenue of communication in time of peace; but, as a 
military communication, it is of no value at all. What business can 
an army ever have there? Besides, it is no gorge, no pass, no nar- 
row defile, to be defended by a fort. If a fort should be built there 
an army could, at pleasure, make a detour so as to keep out of the 
reach of its guns. It is very useful, I admit, in time of peace. But 
does not every body know, military man or not, that unless there is 
a defile, or some narrow place through which troops must pass, and 
which a fortification will command, that a mere open road must, in 
time of war, be in^the power of the strongest? If we retained the 
road by treaty, and war canie, would not the English take possession 
of it if they could? Woidd they be restrained by a regard to the 
Treaty of Washington? 1 have never yet heard a reason adduced 



29 

why this communication sliould be regarded as the slightest possible 
-advantage in a mihtary point of view. 

But the circumstance, which 1 have not long known, is, that,, 
l3y a map published with the speech of the honorable member from 
Missouri, made in the Senate, on the question of ratifying the treaty, 
this well known and long used road is laid down , probably from the 
same source of error which misled Lord Palmerston , as following the 
St. John's, on its south side, to the mouth of the St. Francis; thence 
along that river to its source, and thence, by a single bound , over the 
highlands, to the St. Lawrence, near Q,uebec. This is all imagi- 
nation. It is called the "Valley Road." Valley Road, indeed! 
Why, sir, it is represented as running over the very ridge of the most 
inaccessible part of the highlands! It is made to cross abrupt and 
broken precipices 2,000 feet high! It is, at different points of its 
imaginary course, from fifty to a hundred miles distant from the real 
road. So much, Mr. President, for the great boon of military com- 
munication conceded to England. It is nothing more nor less than 
a common road, along streams and lakes, and over a. country, in great 
part rather flat. It then passes the heights to the St. Lawrence. If 
war breaks out we shall take it, if we can, and if we need it, of which 
there is not the slightest probabiHty. It will never be protected by 
fortifications, and never can be. It will be just as easy to take it from 
England, in case of war, as it would be to keep possession of it, if it 
were our own. 

In regard to the defence of the heights, I shall dispose of that sub- 
ject in a few words. There is a ridge of highlands which does ap- 
proach the river St. Lawrence, although it is not true that they over- 
look Quebec; on the contrary, the ridge is at the distance of thirty 
or forty miles. 

It is very natural that military men in England, or indeed in 
any part of Europe, should have attached great importance to these 
mountains. The great military authority of England — perhaps the 
highest living military authority — had served in India and on the 
European continent, and it was natural enough that he should 
apply European ideas of military defences to America. But they 
are quite inapplicable. Highlands such as these were not ordina- 
rily found on the great battle fields of Europe. They are nei- 
ther Alps nor Pyrenees; they have no passes through them, nor 



30 

roads over them, and never will have. Then there was another 
reason. In 1839 an ex pate survey was made, as I have said, by- 
Captain Mudge and Mr. Featherslonhaugh, if survey it could be 
called, of the region in the north of Maine, for the use of the British 
Government. I dare say Mr. Mudge is an intelligent and respectable 
officer; how much personal attention he gave the subject I do not 
know. As to Mr. Featherstonhaugh, he has been in our service, 
and his authority is not worth a straw. These two persons made a 
report, containing this very singular statement: That, in the ridge of 
highlands nearest to the St. Lawrence, there was a great hiatus in 
one particular place, a gap of thirty or forty miles, in which the ele- 
Vcition did not exceed fifty feet. This was certainly the strangest state- 
ment (hat ever was made. Their whole report gave but one measure- 
ment by the barometer, and ihatmeasurementstated the height of twelve 
hundred feet. A survey and map were made the following year by 
our own commissioners, Messrs. Graham and Talcot, of the Topo- 
graphical Corps, and Professor Renwick, of Columbia College. 
On this map, the very spot where this gap was said to be situated is 
dotted over thickly with figures, showing heights varying from 1,200 
to 2,000 feet, and forming one rough and lofty ridge, marked by ab- 
rupt and almost perpendicular precipices. When this map and re- 
port of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh was sent to England, 
the British authorities saw that this alleged gap was laid down as 
an indefensible point, and it was probably on that ground alone that 
they desired a line east of (hat ridge, in order that they might guard 
against access of a hostile power from the United States. But in 
truth there is no such gap, not at all; our engineers proved this, and 
we quite well understood it when agreeing to the boundary. Any 
man of common sense, military or not, must, therefore, now see 
that nothing can be more imaginary or unfounded than the idea that 
any impor(ance could attach to the possession of these heights. 

Sir, (here are (wo old and well known roads to Canada. One by 
way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu, to Montreal. This 
is the route which armies have traversed so often, in difterent 
periods of our history. The other leads from the Kennebeck 
river to (he sources of the Chaudiere and the Du Loup, and 
so to Quebec. This last was the track of Arnold's march. East 
of (his, (here is no practicable communica(ion for troops between 
Maine and Canada, till we get to the Madawasca. We had be- 



31 

fore us a report from Gen. Wool, while this treaty was in negotia- 
tion, in which that intelligent officer declares, that it is perfectly idle 
to think of fortifying any point east of this road. It is a mountain 
region , through which no army can possibly pass into Canada. And, 
sir, this avenue to Canada, this practicable avenue, and only practi- 
cable avenue east of that by way of Lake Chaniplain, is left now 
just as it was found by the treaty. The treaty does not touch it, 
nor in any manner affect it at all. 

But I must go farther. I said that the Treaty of Washington was 
a treaty of equivalents, in which it was expected that each party 
should give something and receive something. And I am now wil- 
ling to meet any gentleman, be he a military man or not, who will 
make the assertion that, in a military point of view, the greatest ad- 
vantages derived from that treaty were on the side of Great Britain. 
It was on this point that I wished to say something in reply to an 
honorable member from New York, (Mr. Dickinson,) who will 
have it that in this treaty, England supposes that she got the advan- 
tage of us . Sir , I do not think the military advantages she obtained by- 
it are w^orth a rush. But even if they were — if she had obtained ad- 
vantaares of the greatest value — would it not have been fair in the 
member from New York to state, nevertheless, whether ther(5 were 
not equivalent military advantages obtained , on our side , in other parts 
of the line? Would it not have been candid and proper in him,, 
when adverting to the mihtary advantage obtained by England, in a 
communication between New Brunswick and Canada, if such advan- 
tages there were, to have stated, on the other hand, and at the same 
time, the regaining by us of Rouse's Point, at the outlet of Lake 
Champlain? — an advantage which overbalanced all others, forty 
times told. I must be allowed to say, that I certainly never expect- 
ed that a member from New York, above all other men, should speak 
of this treaty au conferring military advantages on Great Britain, with- 
out full equivalents. I listened to it, I confess, with utter astonish- 
ment. A distinguished member from that State, (Mr. Wright,) 
saw, at the time, very clearly the advantage gained by this treaty to 
the United States and to New York. He voted willingly for its rati- 
fication, and he never will say that Great Britain obtained a balance 
of advantages in a military point of view. 

Why, how is the State of New York affected by this treaty? Sir, is 



32 

not Rouse's Point perfectly well known, and admitted, by every mili- 
tary man, to be the key of Lake Champlain? It commands every 
vessel passing up or down the lake, between New York and Can- 
ada. It had always been supposed that this point lay some dis- 
tance south of the parallel of 45, which was our boundary line 
with Canada, and, therefore, was within the United States; and, 
under this supposition, the United States purchased the land, and 
commenced the erection of a strong fortress. But a more accurate sur- 
vey having been made in 1818, by astronomers on both sides, it was 
found that the parallel of 45 ran south of this fortress, and thus 
Rouse's Point, with the fort upon it, was found to be in the British 
dominions. This discovery created, as well it might, a great sensa- 
tion here. None knows this better than the honorable member from 
South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) who was then at the head of the 
Department of War. As Rouse's Point was no longer ours, we sent 
our engineers to examine the shores of the lake, to find some other 
place or places which we might fortify. They made a report, on 
their return, saying, that there were two other points, some distance 
south of Rouse's Point, one called Windmill Point, on the east side 
•of the lake, and the other called Stoney Point, qn the west side, 
which it became necessary now to fortify, and they gave an estimate 
of the probable expense. When this treaty was in process of negotia- 
tion, we called for the opinion of military men respecting the value of 
Rouse's Point, in order to see whether it was highly desirable to ob- 
tain it. We had their report before us, in which it was stated, that 
the natural and best point for the defence of the outlet of Lake 
Champlain was Rouse's Point. In fact, any body might see that 
this was the case who would look at the map. The point projects 
into the narrowest passage by which the waters of the lake pass into 
the Richelieu. Any vessel, passing into or out of the lake, must 
come within point blank range of the guDS of a fortress erected on 
this point; and it ran out so far that any such vessel must approach 
the fort, head on, for several miles, so as to be exposed to a raking 
fire from the battery, before she could possibly bring her broadside 
to bear upon the fort at all. It was very different with the points 
farther south. Between them the passage was much wider; so much 
so, indeed, that a vessel might pass directly between the two, and not 
be in reach of point blank shot from either. 



33 

Mr. Dickinson, of New York, here interposed to ask a question. 
Did not the Dutch line give us Rouse's Point ? ^ 

Mr. W. Certainly not. It gave us a httle semi-circular line, run- 
ning round the fort, but not including what we had possessed before. 
And besides, we had rejected the Dutch line, and the whole point 
now clearly belonged to^ngland . It was all within the British terri- 
tory. Does the gentleman understand me now? 

Mr. Dickinson. Oh yes, I understand you now, and I under- 
stood you before. 

Mr. W. I am glad he does. [A laugh.] I was saying that a 
vessel might pass between the two points. Windmill point and Stony 
point, and escape point blancshot from either. Meanwhile her broad- 
side could be brought to bear upon either of them. The forts would 
be entirely independent of each other, and, having no communi- 
cation, could not render each other the least assistance in case of 
attack. But the military men told us, there was no sort of ques- 
tion, that Rouse's Point was extremely desirable as a point of mil- 
itary defence. This is plain enough, and I need not spend time '10 
prove it. Of one thing I am certain, that the true road to Canada 
is by the way of Lake Champlain. That is the old path. I take to 
myself the credit of having said here, thirty years ago, speaking of 
the mode of taking Canada, that when an American woodsman un- 
dertakes to fell a tree, he does not begin by lopping off the branches, 
but strikes his axe at once into the trunk. The trunk, in relation to 
Canada, is Montreal, and tiie river St. Lawrence down to Quebec; 
and so we found in the last war. It is not my purpose to scan the 
propriety of military measures then adopted, but I suppose it to 
have been rather accidental and unfortunate, that we began the attack 
in Upper Canada. It would have been better military policy, as I sup- 
pose, to have pushed our whole force by the way of Lake Champlain, 
and made a direct movement on Montreal; and, though we might 
thereby have lost the glories of the battles of the Thames, and of 
Lundy's Lane, and of the Sortie from Fort Erie, yet we should 
have won other laurels of equal, and perhaps greater, value at Mon- 
treal. Once successful in this movement, the whole country 
above would have fallen into our power. Is not this evident to every 
gentleman ? Now Rouse's Point is the best means of defending both 
the ingress into the lake, and the exit from it. And I say now, that 
3 ^ 



34 

on the whole frontier of the State of New York, with the single 
exception of the narrows below the city, there is not a point of equal 
importance. I hope this Government will last forever, but if it does 
not, and if, in the judgment of Heaven, so great a calamity shall be- 
fal us as the rupture of this Union, and the State of New York shall 
thereby be tlnowai upon her own defences, I ask is there a single 
point, except the narrows, the possession of which she will so much 
desire? No — there is not one. And how did we obtain this advan- 
tage for her ? The parallel of 45 north w^as established by the treaty 
of '83 as our boundary with Canada in that part of the line. But, 
as 1 have slated, that line was found to run south of Rouse's Point. 
And how^ did we get back this precious possession ? By running a 
little semi-circle like that of the Dutch King? No; we went back to 
the old line, which had always been supposed to be the true Hne, 
and the establishment of which gave us not only Rouse's Point, but 
a strip of land containing some thirty or forty thousand acres between 
the parallel of 45 and the old line. 

The same arrangement gave us a similar advantage in Vermont; and 
I have never heard that the constituents of my friend near me, (Mr. 
Phelps,) made any complaint of the treaty. That State got about 
sixty or seventy thousand acres, including several villages, which 
would otherwise have been left on the British side of the line. We 
received Rouse's Point, and this additional land, as one of the equiva- 
lents for the cession of tenitory made in Maine. And what did we 
do for New Hampshire ? There was an ancient dispute as to which 
was the norlhwestetnmost head of the Connecticut river. Several 
streams were found, either of which might be insisted on as the 
true boundary. But we claimed that called Hall's stream. This 
had not formerly been allowed; the Dutch award did not give to 
New HampsJi ire what she claimed; and Mr. Van Ness, our com- 
missioner, appointed under the treaty of Ghent, after examining the 
ground, came to the conclusion that we were not entitled to Hall's 
stream. 1 thought that we were so entitled, although I admit that 
Hall's stream does not join the Connecticut river till after it has 
passed tlie parallel of 45. By the treaty of Washington this de- 
mand was agreed to, and it gave New Hampshire one hundred thou- 
sand acies of land. I do not say that we obtained this wrongfully; 
but I do say that wc got that which Mr. Van Ness had doubted our 



35 

light to. I thought the claim just, however, and the hne was estab- 
hshed accordingly. And liere let me say once for all, that if we had 
gone for arbitration, we should inevitably have lost what the treaty 
gave to Vermont and New York; because all that was clear matter of 
cession, and not adjustment of doubtful boundary. 

I think that I ought now to relieve the Senate from any further re- 
marks on this northeastern boundary. I say that it was a favorable 
arrangement, both to Maine and Massachusetts, and that nine-tenths 
of their people are well satisfied with it; and I say also, that it was 
advantageous to New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. And I 
say, further, that it gave up no important military point, but, on the 
contrary, obtained one of the greatest consequence and value. And 
here I leave that part of the case for the consideration of the Senate 
and of the country . 

{Here the Senate adjourned.] 

April 7, 1846. 
Mr. WEBSTER resumed. Yesterday I read an extract from the 
proceedings in the British Parliament of a despatch of Lord Palmer- 
ston to Mr. Fox, in which Lord Palmerston says, that the British 
Government, as early as 1840, had perceived that they never could 
come to a settlement of this controversy with the government of Mr. 
Van Buren. I do not wish to say whether the fault was more on 
one side than the other; but I wish to bar, in the first place, any in- 
ference of an improper character which may be drawn from that 
statement of the British secretary of foreign aliairs. It was not, that 
they looked forward to a change which should bring gentlemen into 
power more pliable, more agreeable to the purposes of England. No, 
sir, those remarks of Lord Palmerston, whether true or false, were 
not caused by any peculiar stoutness or stififness which Mr. Van 
Buren had ever maintained on our side of the merits of the ques- 
tion. The merits of the boundary question were never discussed 
by Mr. Van Buren to any extent. The thing that his Adminis- 
tration discussed was the formation of a convention of exploration 
and arbitration to settle the question. A few years before this 
despatch of Lord Palmerston to Mr. Fox, the two Governments, 
as I have repeatedly said, had agreed how the question should be set- 
tled. They had agreed that there should bean exploration. Mr. 
Van Buren had proposed and urged arbitration also. England had- 



36 

agreed tothis, at his request. The Governments had agreed lo 
these two principles, therefore, long before tlie date of that letter of 
Lord Palmerston; and from that agreement, till near the close 
of Mr. Van Buren's administration, the whole correspondence turned 
on the arrangement of details of a convention for arbitration, ac- 
cording to the stipulation of the parties. Therefore, it was not on 
account of any notion that Mr. Van Buren stood up for Ameri- 
can questions better than others. It was because these subordinate 
questions respecting the convention for arbitration had got into so much 
complexity — so embarrassed with projects and counter projects — had, 
become so difficult and entangled; and because every effort to disen- 
tangle them had made the matter worse. On this account alone Lord 
Palmerston had made tlie remarks. I wish to draw no inference that 
would be injurious to others, to make no imputation on Mr. Van Bu- 
ren . But it is necessary to remember, that this dispute liad run on for 
years, and was likely to run on forever, though the main principles had 
already been agreed on, viz: exploration and arbitration. It was an 
endless discussion of details, and forms of proceeding, in which the 
parties receded farther and farther from each other every day. 

One thing more, sir, by way of explanation. I referred yesterday to 
the report made by Gen. Wool in respect to the road from Kennebec. 
In point of fact, the place which Gen. Wool recommended in 1838, 
to be fortified, was a few miles farther east, towards the waters of 
the Penobscot river, than Arnold's route; but, generally, the remark 
I made was perfectly true, that east of that line there has not been a 
road or passage. The honorable member from New York yesterday 
produced extracts from certain debates in Parliament respecting the 
importance of the territory ceded to England in a military point of 
view. I beg to refer to some others which I hold in my hand, but 
which I shall not read — the speeches of Sir Charles Napier, Lord 
Palmerston, Sir Howard Douglass, (fcc, as an offset to those 
quoted by the honorable member. But I do not think it of im- 
portance to balance those opinions against each other. Some gen- 
tlemen appear to entertain one set of opinions, some another; 
and, for my own part, I candidly admit that by both, one and 
the other, facts are overstated. I do not believe, sir, that any 
thing, in a military point of view, ceded by us to England, is of 
^ny consequence to us or to her; or that any thing important, ia 



37 

that respect, was ceded by either party, except one thing — that is 
Rouse's Point. I do beheve it was an object of importance to re- 
possess ourselves of the site of that fortress, and to that point I shall 
proceed to make a few remarks that escaped me yesterday. I do not 
complain here that the member from New York has underrated the 
importance of that acquisition. He has not spoken of it. But 
what I do complain of — if complaint it may be called — is, that 
when he spoke of cessions made to England by the treaty of 
Washington, a treaty which proposed to proceed on the ground 
of mutual concessions, equivalents, and considerations — when re- 
ferring to such a treaty to show the concessions made to Eng- 
land, he did not consider it necessary to state, on the other 
hand, the corresponding cessions made by England to us. And I 
say again, that the cession of Rouse's Point by her, must be, and 
is considered by those best capable of appreciating its value, of more 
importance than all the cessions we made to England in a military 
point; and to show liow our Government have regarded its import- 
ance, let me remind you, that immediately on the close of the last 
war, although the country was heavily in debt, there was nothing to 
which the Government addressed itself with more zeal than to fortify 
this point, as the natural defence of Lake Champlain. As early as 
1816, the Government paid twenty or thirty thousand dollars for the 
site, and went on with the work at an expense of one hundred tiiou- 
sand dollars. But in 181S, the astronomers, appointed on both sides, 
found it was on the English side of the boundary. That, of course, 
terminated our operations. But that is not all. How did our Gov- 
ernment regard the acquisition by the treaty of Washington? Why 
the ink with which that treaty was signed was hardly dry, when the 
most eminent engineers were despatched to that place, who examined 
its strength and proceeded to renew and reluiild it. And no military 
work — not even the fortifications for the defence of the Narrows, ap- 
proaching tile harbor of New York, has been proceeded with by the 
Government with more zeal. Having said so much, sir, I will merely 
add, that if gentlemen desire to obtain more information on this im- 
portant subject, they may consult the head of the engineer corps. Col. 
Totten, and Commodore Morris, who went there by instructions to 
examine it, and who reported thereon. 

And here, sir, I conclude m.y remarks on the question of the 
Northeastern Boundary. 



38 

And I now leave it to the country to say, whether this question, this 
troublesome, and annoying, and dangerous question, which had 
lasted through the ordinary length of two generations, having now 
been taken up, in 1841, was not well settled, and promptly settled? 
Whether it was not well settled for Maine and Massachusetts, and 
well settled for the whole country? And whether, in the opinion of 
all fair and candid men, the complaint about it which we hear at this 
day, does not arise entirely from a desire that those connected with 
the accomplishment of a measure so important to the peace of the 
country should not be allowed to derive too much credit from it? 

Mr. President, the destruction of the steamboat ''Caroline," in the 
harbor of Schlosser, by a British force, in December, 1837, and the 
arrest of Alexander McLeod, a British subject, composing part of 
that force, four years afterwards, by the authorities of New York^ 
and his trial for an alleged murder committed by him on that 
occasion, have been subjects of remark, here and elsewhere, at 
this session of Congress, They are connected subjects, and call, in 
the first place, for a brief historical narrative. 

In the year 1837 a civil commotion, or rebellion, which had bro- 
ken out in Canada, had been suppressed, and many persons engaged 
in it had fled to the United States. In the autumn of that year these 
persons, associating with themselves man}' persons of lawless cha- 
racter in the United States, made actual war on Canada, and took 
possession of Navy Island, belonging to England, in the Niagara 
river. It may be the safest course to give an account of these 
occurrences from ofiicial sources. Mr. Van Buren thus recites the 
facts, as the Government of the United States understood them, in 
his message of December, 1838: 

" I had hoped that the respect for the laws and regard for the peace and honor or 
their own country, which has ever characterized the citizens of the United States, would 
have prevented any portion of them from using any means to promote insurrection in 
the territory of a power with which we are at peace, and with which tlie United States 
are desirous of maintaining the most friendly relations. I regret deeply, however, to 
be obliged to inform you that this has not been the case. 

" Information has been given to me, dei-ived from official and other sources, that 
many citizens of the United States have associated together to make hostile incursions 
from our territory into Canuda, and to aid and abet insurrection there, in violation of the- 
obligations and laws of the United States, and in open disregard of their own duties as 
citizens. This information has been in part confirmed, by a hostile invasion actually 
jnade by citizens of tlie United States, in conjunction with Canadians and others, and. 



39 

accompanied by a forcible seizure of tlie property of our citizens, and an application 
thereof to the prosecution of military operations against the authorities and people of 
Cajiada. The results of these criminal assaults upon the peace and order of a neighbor- 
ing country have been, as was to be expected, fatally destructive to the misguided or 
deluded persons engaged in them, and highly injurious to those in whose behalf they 
,are professed to have been undertaken. The aiithoriues in Canada, from intelligence 
received of such intended movements among our citizens, have felt themselves obliged 
to take precautionary measures against them, have actually embodied the militia, and 
assumed an attitude to repel an invasion, to which they believed the colonies v/ere ex- 
posed from the United States. A state of feeling on both sides of the frontier had thus 
been produced^ which called for prompt and vigorous interference." 

The following is the British account of the same occurrence: 

" In this state of things, a small band of Canadian refugees, who had taken shelter 
in the State of New York, formed a league with a number of the citizens of the United 
States for the purpose of invading the British territory, not to join a party engaged in 
civil war, because civil war at that time in Canada there was none, but in order to com- 
mit, within the British territory, the crimes of robbery, arson, and murder. 

" By a neglect on the part of that government, (N. Y.,) which seems to admit of but 
one explanation, the storehouses which contained the arms and ammunition of the State 
were left unguarded, and were tonsequently broken open by this gang, who carried off 
thence in open day, and in the most public manner, cannon, and other implements of war. 

" After some days' preparation, these people proceeded, without any interruption 
from the government or authorities of the State of New York, and under the command 
of an American citizen, to invade and occupy Navy Island, and part of the British ter- 
ritory ; and, having engaged the steamboat Cciroline, which, for their special service, 
was cut out of the ice, in which she had been enclosed in the port of Buffido, they had 
used her for the purpose of bringing over to Navy Island, from the United States terri- 
tory, men, arms, ammunition, stores, and provisions. 

" The preparations made for this invasion of British territory by a band of men orga- 
nized, armed, and equipped within the United States, and cou.sisting partly of British 
subjects and partly of American citizens, had induced the British authorities to station a 
military force at Chippewa, to repel the threatened invasion, and to defend Her Majes- 
ty's territory. The commander of that fort, seeing that the Caroline was used as a 
means of supply and reinforcement for the invaders, who had occupied Navy Island, judged 
that the capture and destruction of that vessel would prevent supplies and reinforcements 
from passing over to the island, and would, moreover, deprive the force on the island 
of the means of peissing over to the British territory on the main land '' 

According to the British account, the expedition sent to capture the 
Caroline expected to find her at Navy Island; but when the com- 
manding officer came round the point of the island in the night he 
found that she was moored to the other shore. This did not deter 
him from making the capture. In that capture a citizen of the Uni- 
ted States by the name of Durfree lost his life; (he British authorities 
pretend, by a chance shot by one of his own party; the American, 
by a shot from one of the British party. 



40 

This transaction took place on the 29th of December, 1837, 
in the first year of Mr. Van Buren's Administration; and no 
sooner was it known here, and made the subject of a com- 
munication by Mr. Forsythe to Mr. Fox, than the latter avowed it, 
as an act done by the British authorities, and justified it, as a proper and. 
necessary measure of self-defence. Observe, sir, if you please, that 
the Caroline was destroji^d in December, 1837, and Mr. Fox's 
avowal of that destruction, as a Government act, and his justification 
of it, were made in Januarv following, so soon as knowledge of the 
occurrence reached Washington. Now, sir, if .the avowal of the 
British minister, made in the name of his Government, was a suffi- 
ciently authentic avowal, why, then, from that moment, the Govern- 
ment of Great Britain became responsible for the act, and the United 
States was to look to that Government for reparation or redress, or 
whatever act, or acknowledgment, or apology , the case called for. If 
Mr. Fox's letter was proper proof that the destruction of the Caro- 
line was an act of public force, then the Government of Great Britain 
was directly responsible to the Government of the United States; 
and of the British Government directly, and the British Govern- 
ment only, was satisfaction to be demanded. Nothing was imme- 
diately done; the matter was suffered to lie, and grow cool; 
but it afterwards became a question, at what time the United 
States Government did first learn, by sufficient evidence and autho- 
rity, that the British Government had avowed the destruction of the 
Caroline as its own act. Now, in the first place, there was the direct 
avowal of Mr, Fox made at the time, and never disapproved. This 
avowal, and the account of the transaction, reached, ^London in Feb- 
ruary, 1838. Lord Pahnerston thinks that, in conversations with 
Mr. Stevenson, not long subsequent, he intimated distinctly, that the 
destruction of (he vessel would turn out to be justifiable. At all 
events, it is certain, that, on the 22d day of May, 1838, in an official 
note to Lord Pahnerston, written by instructions from his Government, 
demanding reparation for her destruction, Mr. Stevenson did state, 
that the Government of the United Slates did consider tliat transaction as 
an outrage upon the United Slates, and a violation of United States 
territory, committed by British troops, planned and executed by the 
Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada." It is clear, then, that the 
Government of the United Slates so understood the matter, when it 



41 

gave Mr. Stevenson the instructions, on which he made this demand. 
The administration knew, fidl well, that the expedition was a pubhc 
expedition, set on foot by the authorities of Canada, avowed here, 
immediately, by Mr. Fox as an act for which the British Government 
took upon itself the responsibility, and never disavowed by that Gov- 
ernment at any time or in any way. 

And now, sir, why was this aggression on the territory of the Unit- 
ed States, why was this indignity, suffered to remain unvindicated 
and unredressed, for three years? Why was no answer made, and 
none insisted on, to Mr. Stevenson's official and direct demand for 
reparation? The jealous guardians of national honor, so tenaciously 
alive to what took place in 1842, what opiate had drugged their pa- 
triotism for so many years? Whose fault was it that, up to 1841, 
the Government of Great Britain had been brought to no acknow- 
ledgment, no explanation, no apology? This long and unbroken 
slumber over public outrage and national indignity, who indulged in 
it? Nay, if the Government of the United States thought it had not 
sufficient evidence that the outrage was, as it had declared it to be itself, 
a public outrage, then it was a private outrage, the invasion of our 
territory, and the murder of an American citizen, without any justi- 
fication, or pretence of justification; and had it not become high time 
that such an outrage was redressed? 

Sir, there is no escape from this. The administration of Mr. Van 
Buren knew perfectly w'ell that the destruction of the Caroline was 
an act of public force, done by the British authorities in Canada. 
They knew it had never been disavowed at home . The act was a 
wrongful one on the part of the Canadian forces. They had no 
right to invade the territory of the United States. It w^as an aggres- 
sion for which satisfaction was due, and should have been insisted on 
immediately, and insisted on perseveringly. But this was not done. 
The administration slept, and slept on, and would have slept till 
this time, if it had not been waked by the arrest of McLeod. Be- 
ing on this side of the line, and making foolish and false boasts of 
his martial achievements, McLeod was arrested in November, 1840, 
on a charge for the murder of Durfree ,in capturing theCaroline , and com- 
mitted to prison by the authorities of New York. He was bailed ; but vio- 
lence and mobs overawed the courts, and he was recommitted to jail. 
This was an important and very exciting occurrence. Mr. Fox made a 



42 

demand for his immediate release . The administration of Mr. Van Bu- 
ren roused itself, and looked round to ascertain its position. ,Mr. Fox 
again asserted , that the destruction of the Caroline was an act of public 
force, done by public authority , and avowed by the English Government , 
as the American Government had long before known . To this Mr. For- 
sythe replied, in a note of December 26, 1S40, thus: " If the de- 
struction of the Caroline was a public act of persons in Her Majesty's 
service, obeying the order of their superior authorities, this fact has 
not been jjefore communicated to the Government of the United 
States by a person authorized to make the admission." Certainly, 
Mr. President, it is not easy to reconcile this language with the in- 
structions, under which Mr. Stevenson made his demand, of May, 
1838, and which demand he accompanied with the declaration, that 
the act was planned and executed by the authorities of Canada. 
Whether the act of the Governor had or had not been approved at 
home, the Government of the United States, one would think, could 
hardly need to be informed, in 1840, that that act was committed by 
persons in Her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their superior 
authorities. Mr. Forsythe adds, very properly, that it will be for the 
courts to decide on the validity of the defence. It is worthy of re- 
mark that, in this letter of December 26, 1840, Mr. Forsythe com- 
plains, that up to that day the Government of the United States had 
not become acquainted with the views and intentions of the Govern- 
ment of England respecting the destruction of the Caroline ! Now, 
Mr. President, this was the state of things in the winter of 1840, '41, 
and on the 4th of March, 1841, when Gen. Wm. H. Harrison be- 
came President of the United States. 

On the 12th of that same month of March, Mr. Fox wrote to the 
Department of State a letter, in which, after referring to his original 
correspondence with Mr. Forsythe, in which he had avowed and jus- 
tified the capture of the Caroline as an act of necessary defence, he 
proceeds to say: 

" The undersigned is directed, in the first place, to make known to the Government of 
the U. S., that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of the course pursued by 
the undersigned in that correspondence, and of the language adopted by him in the offi- 
cial letters above mentioned. 

"And the undersigned is now instructed again to demand from the Government of the 
United States, formally, in the name of the British Government, the immediate release 
of Mr. Alexander McLeod. 



"The grounds upon whicli the British Government make this demand upon the Gov- 
ernment of the U. S. are these: That the transaction, on account of which Mr. McLeod 
has been arrested and is to be put upon his trial, was a transaction of a public character, 
planned and executed by persons duly empowered by Her Majesty's colonial authorities 
to take any steps, and do any acts, which might be necessary for the defence of Her 
Majesty's territories, and for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects ; and that, conse- 
quently, those subjects of Her Majesty, who engaged in that transaction, were perform- 
ing an act of public duty for which they cannot be made personally and individually an- 
swerable to the laws emd tribunals of any foreign country. 

"The transaction may have been, as Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it 
was, a justifiable employment of force for the purpose of defending the British territory 
from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels and American pirates, who, 
having been permitted to arm and organize themselves within the territory of the U. 
S., had actually invaded and occupied a portion of the territory of Her Majesty ; or it 
may have been, as alleged by Mr. Forsythe in his note to the undersigned of the 26th 
of December, 'a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of peace, of the territory of the U. 
S.' But it is a question essentially of a political and international kind, which can be 
discussed and settled only between the two Governments, and which the courts of jus- 
tice of the State of New York cannot by possibility have any means of judging, or any 
right of deciding." 

The British Government insisted that it must have beenwiown, and 
was well known , long before, that it had avowed and justified the cap- 
ture of the Caroline, and taken upon itself the responsibility. Mr. For- 
sythe, as you have seen, sir, in his note of December 26th, had said;, 
that fact had not been before communicated by a person authorized 
to make the admission. Well, sir, then, what was now to be done ? 
Here was a new, fresh, and direct avowal of the act by the British 
Government, and a formal demand for McLeod's immediate release. 
And how did Gen. Harrison's administration treat this? Sir, just as 
it ought to have treated it. It was not poor and mean enough in its 
intercourse with a foreign Government, to make any reflections on its 
predecessor, or appear to strike out a new path for itself. It did not 
seek to derogate, in the slightest degree, from the propriety of what 
had been said and done by Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Forsythe^ 
whatever eminent example it might have found, for such a course 
of conduct. No; it rather adopted what Mr. Forsythe had said in 
December, to wit, that at that time no authentic avowal had been 
communicated to the United States. But now an avowal had beei> 
made, on the authority of the Government itself; and Gen. Harrison 
acted , and rightly acted, on the case made by this avowal. And 
what opinions did he form, and what course did he pursue, in a cri- 



44 

sis. and in regard to transactions, so intimately connected with the 
peace and honor of the country ? 

Sir , in the first place , Gen . Harrison was of opinion , that the entering- 
of the U. S. territory, by British troops, for the purpose of capturing 
or destroying tlie Carohne, was unjustifiable. That it was an aggres- 
sion, a violation of the territory of the United States, Not that the 
British forces might not have destroyed that vessel, if they could have 
found her on their own side of the line; for she was unlawfully em- 
ployed — she was assisting to make war on Canada. But she could 
not be followed into a port of the United States, and there captured. 
This was an offence to the dignity and sovereignty of this Govern- 
ment, for which apology and satisfaction ought long since to have 
been obtained, and which apology and satisfaction it was not yet too 
late to demand. This was Gen Harrison's opinion. 

In the next place, and on the other hand, Gen. Harrison was of 
opinion, that the arrest and detention of McLeod were contrary to the 
law of natHns. McLeod was a soldier, acting under the authority of 
his Government, and obeying orders which he was bound to obey. It 
was absurd to say, that a soldier, who must obey orders or be shot, 
may still be hanged if he does obey them. Was Gen. Harrison to 
turn aside, from facing the British lion, and fall on a lamb ? Was he 
to quail before the crown of England, and take vengeance on a pri- 
vate soldier ? No , sir, that was not in character for Wm . H. Harrison . 
He held the British Government responsible; he died, to tlie great 
grief of his country, but in the time of his successor that responsi- 
bility was jusdy appealed to, and satisfactorily fulfilled. 

Mr. Fox's letter, written under instructions from Lord Palmerston, 
was a little peremptory, and some expressions were regarded as not 
quite courteous and conciliatory. This caused some hesitation; but 
Gen. Harrison said that he would not cavil at phrases, since, in the 
main, the British complaint was well founded, and we ought at 
once to do what we could to place ourselves right. 

Sir, the members of the administration were all of one mind on 
this occasion. Gen. Harrison, himself a man of large general read- 
ing and long expeiience, was decidedly of opinion that McLeod 
could not be lawfully holden to answer, in die courts of New York, 
for what had been done by him , as a soldier, under superior orders. All 
the members of the Administration were of the same opinion, without 



45 

doubt or hesitation . I may, without impropriety , say , that Mr. Crit- 
tenden, Mr. E wing, Mr Bell, Mr. Badger, and Mr. Granger were 
not all likely to come to an erroneous conclusion, on this question of 
public law, after they had given it full consideration and examination. 

Mr. Fox's letter was answered; and from that answer I will read 
an extract: 

" Mr. Fox informs the Government of llie United States that he is instructed to make 
known to it that the Government of Her Majesty entirely approve the com-se pursued 
by him in liis correspondence with Mr. Forsythe in December last, and the language 
adopted by him on that occasion; and that the Government have instructed him 'again 
to demand from the Government of the United States, fomially, in the name of the 
British Government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander McLeod;' that 'the 
grounds upon which the British Government make this demand upon the Government 
of the United States are these: That the transaction on account of which Mr. McLeod 
has been arrested, and is to be put upon his trial, was a transaction of a public chai-acter, 
planned emd executed by persons duly empowered by Her Majesty's colonial authori- 
ties to take any steps and to do any acts which might be necessaiy for the defence of 
Her Majesty's territories, and for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects ; and that, 
consequently, those subjects of Her Majesty who engaged in that transaction were per- 
forming an act of public duty, for which they cannot be made personally and individu- 
ally answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreign country. 

" The President is not certain that he understands precisely the meaning intended by 
Her Majesty's Government to be conveyed by the foregoing instruction. 

" This doubt has occasioned with the President some hesitation ; but he inclines to 
take it for granted that the main purpose of the instruction was to cause it to be signi- 
fied to the Government of the United States that the attack on the steamboat ' Caroline' 
was an act of public force, done by the British colonial authorities, and fully recognised 
by the dueen's Government at home ; and that, consequently, no individual concerned 
in that transaction can, according to the just principles of the laws of nations, be held 
personally answerable, in the ordinary courts of law, as for a private offence ; and that, 
upon this avowal of Her Majesty's Government, Alexander McLeod, now imprisoned 
on an indictment for murder, alleged to have been committed in that attack, ought to be 
released by such proceedings as are usual and are suitable to the case. 

" The President adopted the conclusion, that nothing more than this could have been 
intended to be expressed, from the consideration that Her Majesty's Government must 
be fully aware that, in the United States, as in England, persons confined under judicial 
process can be released from that confinement only by judicial process. In neither coun- 
try, as the undersigned supposes, can the arm of the Executive power interfere, direct- 
ly or forcibly, to release or deliver the prisoner. His discharge must be sought in a 
manner conformable to the principles of law and the proceedings of courts of judicature. 
If any indictment like that which has been found against Alexander McLeod, and un- 
der circumstances like those which belong to his case, were pending against an individual 
in one of the courts of England, there is no dcubt that the law oflicer of the crown might 
enter a nolle prosequi, or that the prisoner might cause himself to be brought up on 
habeas corpus and discharged, if his ground of discharge should be adjudged sufficient. 



46 

or that he might prove the same facts, and insist on the same defence or exemption on 
his trial. 

" All these are legal modes of proceeding, well known to the laws and practice of 
both countries. But the undersigned does not suppose that, if such a case were to arise 
in England, the power of the Executive Government could be exerted in any more direct 
manner. 

" Even in the case of ambassadors and other public ministers, whose right to exemjv 
tion from ai-rest is personal, requiring no fact to be ascertained but the mere fact of dip- 
lomatic character, and to arrest whom is sometimes made a highly penal offence, if the 
.arrest be actually made, it must be discharged by application to the courts of law. 

" It is understood that Alexander McLeod is holden, as well on civil as on criminal 
process, for acts alleged to have been done by him in the attack on the ' Caroline,' and 
his defence or ground of acquittal must be the same in both cases. And this strongly 
illustrates, as the undersigned conceives, the propriety of the foregoing observations ; 
since it is quite clear that the Executive Government cannot interfere to arrest a civil 
suit between private parties in any stage of its progress, but that such suit must go on 
to its regular judicial termination. If, therefore, any course different from such as have 
been now mentioned was in contemplation of Her Majesty's Government, something 
would seem to have been expected from the Government of the United States as little 
conformable to the laws and usages of the English Government as to those of the Uni- 
.ted States, and to which this Government cannot accede. 

" The Government of the United States, therefore, acting upon the presumption 
which is already adopted, that nothing extraordinary or unusual was expected or re- 
■quested of it, decided, on the reception of Mr. Fox's note, to take such measures as 
the occasion and its own duty appeared to require. 

" In his note to Mr. Fox of the 26th of December last, Mr. Forsythe, the Secretary 
of State of the United States, observes, that, ' if the destruction of the Caroline was a 
public act of persons in Her Majesty's service, obeying the order of their superior au- 
thorities, this fact has not been before communicated to the Government of the United 
States by a person authorized to make the admission ; and it will be for the court, 
•which has taken cognizance of the offence with which Mr. McLeod is charged, to de- 
•cide upon its validity when legally established before it;' and adds: 'The President 
deems this a proper occasion to remind the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that 
the case of the Caroline has been long since brought to the attention of Her Majesty's 
principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, up to this day, has not com- 
municated its decision thereupon. It is hoped that the Government of Her Ma- 
jesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving the Government of the United 
States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a subject which has naturally pro- 
duced much exasperation, and which has led to such grave consequences.' 

" The communication of the fact that the destruction of the ' Caroline' was an act of 
public force by the British authorities being formally communicated to the Government 
•of the United States by Mr. Fox's note, the case assumes a different aspect. 

" The Government of the United States entertains no doubt that, after this avowal 
of the transaction as a public transaction, authorized and undertalien by the British au- 
thorities, individuals concerned in it ought not, by the principles of public law and the 
general usage of civilized States, to be holden personally responsible in the ordinary 
tribunals of law for their participation in it. And the President presumes that it can 
hardly be necessary to say that the American people, not distrustful of their ability to 



47 

redress public wrongs by public means, cannot desire the punishment of individuals 
when the act complained of is declared to ha^-e been the act of the Government itself. 

" Soon after the date of Mr. Fox's note an instruction was given to the Attorney- 
General of the United States from this Department, by direction of the President, which 
fully sets forth the opinions of this Government on the subject of Mr. McLeod's im- 
prisonment ; a copy of which instruction the undersigned has the honor herewith to en- 
close. 

" The indictment against McLeod is pending in a State court; but his rights, what- 
ever they may be, are no less safe, it is to be presumed, than if he were holden to an- 
swer in one of this Government. 

"He demands immunity from personal responsibility by vii-tue of the law of nations; 
and that law, in civilized States, is to be respected in all courts. None is either so high 
or so low as to escape from its authority in cases to which its i-ules and principles 
apply. " 

And now, sir, who will deny that this decision was entirely cor- 
rect ? Who will deny that this arrest of McLeod, and this threatening 
to hang him, was just cause of ofTence to the British Government? 
Sir, what should we have thought ourselves, in a like case? If 
United States troops, by the lawful authority of their Government, 
were ordered to pass over the line of boundary, for any purpose — re- 
taliation, reprisal, fresh pursuit of an enemy, or any thing else — and 
the government of the territory invaded, not bring^ig our Govern- 
ment to account, but sleeping three years over the affront, should then 
snatch up one of our citizens found in its jurisdiction, and who had 
been one of the force, and proceed to try, condemn, and execute 
him, sir, would not the whole country have risen up like one man? 
Should we have submitted to it for a moment? Suppose that now, 
by order of the President, and in conformity to law, an American 
army should enter Canada, or Oregon, for any purpose which the 
Government of the United States thought just, and was ready to de- 
fend, and the British Government, turning away from demanding re- 
sponsibility or satisfaction from us, should seize an individual soldier, 
try him, convict him, and execute him, sir, should we not declare 
war at once, or make war? Would this be submitted to for a mo- 
ment? Is there a man, with an American heart in his bosom, who 
would keep still, and be silent, in the face of such an outrage on 
public law, and such an insult to the flag and sovereignty of his 
country? Who would endure, that an American soldier, acting in 
obedience to lawful authority, and with the eagle and the stars and 
stripes over his head, should be arrested, tiied, and executed as a pri- 
vate murderer? Sir, if we had received such an insult, and atone- 



48 

ment had not been instantly made, we should have avenged it at 
any expense of treasure and of blood . A manly feeling of honor and 
character, therefore, a sense of justice, and respect for the opinion of 
the civilized world, a conviction of what would have been our own 
conduct, in a like case, all called on General Harrison to do exactly 
what he did. 

England had assumed her proper responsibility, and what was it? 
She had made an aggression upon the United States by entering her ter- 
ritory for a belligerent purpose. She had invaded the sanctity of our 
territorial rights. As to the mere destruction of the vessel, if perpe- 
trated on the Canadian side, it would have been quite justifiable. 
The persons engaged in that vessel were, it is to be remembered, 
violating the laws of their own country; as well as the law of nations ; 
some of them suffered for that offence, and I wish all had suffered. 

Mr. Allen here desired to know where the proof was of the fact 
that the Caroline was so engaged ? Was there any record of the 
fact? 

Mr. Webster. Yes; there is proof — abundant proof. The fact 
that the vessel ^1•lS so engaged was, I believe, pretty well proved on 
the trial and conviction of Van Rensselaer. But, besides, there is 
abundant proof in the Department of State, in the evidence taken in 
Canada by the authorities there, and sent to Great Britain, and which 
could be confirmed by any body who lived any where from Buffalo 
down to Schlosser. It was proved by the res gestae. What was the 
condition and conduct of the Caroline? Mr. Stevenson, making the 
best case he could for the United States, said that she was cleared out 
at Buffalo, in the latter part of December, to ply between Buffalo and 
Schlosser, on the same side of the river a few miles below. Lord 
Palmerston, with his usual sarcasm, and with more than a usual oc- 
casion for the application of that sarcasm, said, '^It was very true she 
was cleared out; but Mr. Stevenson forgot that she was also ^^cut 
out" of the ice in which she had been laid up for the winter; and 
that in departing from Buffalo, instead of going down to Schlosser, 
she went down to Navy Island;" and his lordship asked, "^^ What new 
outbreak of traffic made it necessary to have a steamboat plying, in 
the depth of winter, between Buffalo and Schlosser, when exactly 
between those two places on the shore there was a very convenient 
railroad?" I will most respectfully suggest all this to the considera- 



49 

tion of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. And, 
as further evidence^ I will state the entire omission of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, during tlie whole of Mr. Van Buren's ad- 
ministration , to make any demand for reparation for the property de- 
stroyed. So far as I remember, such a suggestion was never made. 
But one thing I do very well remember, and that is, that a person 
who had some interest in the property came to the city of Washing- 
ton, and thought of making an apphcation to the Government, in the • 
time of Mr. Van Buren, for indemnity. 

Well, he was told that the sooner he shut his mouth on that sub- 
ject the better, for he himself, knowing that the purpose to which the 
vessel was to be appUed, came within the purview of the statutes of 
the United States against fitting out hostile expeditions against coun- 
tries with which the United States'were at peace, was liable to prose- 
cution; and he, ever afterwards, profiting by this friendly admoni- 
tion, held his peace. That was another piece of evidence which I 
respectfully submit to the consideration of the Chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. 

Well, sir, McLeod's case went on in the court of New York, and 
I was utterly surprised at the decision of that court on the habeas 
corpus. On the peril and at the risk of my professional reputation, 
I now say , that the opinion of the court of New York, in that case, is 
not a respectable opinion, either on account of the result at which it 
arrives, or the reasoning on which it proceeds.* 

McLeod was tried and acquitted ; there being no proof that he had killed 
Durfree. Congress afterwards passed an act, that, if such cases should 
arise hereafter, they should be immediately transferred to the courts of 
the United States. That was a necessary and a proper law. It was re- 
quisite, in order to enable the Government of the United States to 
maintain the peace of the country. And it was perfectly constitu- 
tional; because it is a just and important principle, quite a funda- 
mental principle, indeed, that the judicial power of the General Go- 

• This opinion has been ably and learnedly reviewed by Judge Talimadge, of the Su- 
perior Court of the city of New York. Of this review, the late Chief Justice Spencer 
says: " It refutes and overthrows the opinion most amply." Chancellor Kent says of 
it : " It is conclusive upon every point. 1 should have been proud if I had been the 
author of it." The opinion of the Supreme Court of New York is not likely to be re- 
ceived, at home or abroad, as the American understanding of an important principle of 
public law. 

4 



50 

vernment sliould be co-extensive wiih its legislative and executive 
powers. When the authority and duty of this Government is to be 
judicially discussed and decided, that decision must be in the courts 
of the United States, or else that which holds the Government to- 
gether would become a band of straw. McLeod having been ac- 
quiUed, put an end to all question concerning his case; and Congress 
having passed a law providing for such cases in future, it only re- 
mained that a proper explanation and apology — all that a nation of 
high honor could ask, or a nation of high honor could give — should 
be obtained for the violation of territorial sovereignty; and that was 
obtained. Not obtained in Mr, Van Buren's time, but obtained, con- 
currently with the settlement of other questions, in 1S42. Appen- 
dix V. 

Before Mr. Fox's letter was answered, sir, the President had di- 
rected the Attorney General to proceed to New York, with copies of 
the official correspondence, and with instructions to signify to the 
Governor of New York the judgment ^yhicll had been formed here.* 
These instructions have been referred to, and they are pubhc. The 
moment was critical. A mob had arrested judicial proceedings on 
the frontier. The trial of McLeod was expected to come on imme- 
diately at Lockport; and what would be the fate of the prisoner, be- . 
tween the opinions entertained inside of the court-house, and lawless 
%'iolence without, no one could foresee. The instructions were in 
the spirit of the answer to Mr. Fox's letter. And I now call on the 
member from New York to furnish authority for his charge, made in 
his speech the other day, that the Government of the United States 
had 'interfered, directly and palpably," with the proceedings of 
the courts of New York. It is untrue. He has no authority, not a 
particle, for any such statement. All that was done was made pub- 
lic. He has no other authority for what he said than the public 
papers; they do not bear him out. To say, on the ground 
of what is public, that the Government of the United States 
interfered, '"^ directly and palpably," with the proceedings in New 
York, is not only untrue, but ridiculous. There was no demand for 
the delivery of McLeod to the United States; there was no attempt 
to arrest the proceedings of the New York court. Mr. Fox was told 
that these proceedings must go on, until they were judicially termi- 

*Vide Appendix VI. 



51 

nated; ihatMcLeod was in confinement, by judicial proce?3,and could 
only be released by judicial process ruider the same authorily. All 
this is plainly stated in Mr. CriUenden's instructions; and no man, 
who reads that paper, can fall into any mistake about it. There was 
no ^^ direct and palpable" interference with the New York courts, 
nor any interference at all. The Governor of New York did not 
think there was, nor did any body else ever think theie was. 

Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Allen,) 
bestowed, I believe, a very considerable degree of attention upon 
topics connected with the treaty of Washington. It so happened that 
my engagements did not permit me to be in the Senate during the 
delivery of any considerable portion of that speech. I was in occa- 
sionally, however, and heard some parts of it. I have not been able 
to find any particular account of the honorable member's remarks. 
In the only printed speech which I have been able to lay my hands 
on, it is said that he took occasion to speak, in general terms, of va- 
rious topics^^enumerating them — embraced in the treaty of 1842. 
As I have not seen those lemarks, I shall not now undertake to make 
any further allusion to them. If I should happen to see them here- 
after, so far as I may believe that they have not been answered by 
what I have already said, or may now say, I may, perhaps, deem it 
worth while to embrace some opportunity of taking such notice of 
them as to me they may seem to require. 

Mr. xIllen. I will now state, for the satisfaction of the Senator, 
the general substance of what I said on the subject. If he so desires, 
I will now proceed to do so . 

Mr. Webster. I think that, upon the whole, when the gentle- 
man shall furnish the public with a copy of his speech, I may, per- 
haps, have a more proper opportunity to pay attention to it, especially 
as I have to say somethiug of other speeches, which may at present 
occupy as much of the time of the Senate as can well be devoted to 
this subject. And now, s\v,paulo mijora canamus. 

An honorable member from New York nearest the chair 
(Mr. Dickinson) made a speech on this subject. I propose to 
take some notice of that speech. But first I must remark, that the 
honorable gentleman did not seem to be satisfied with his own light; 
he borrowed somewhat extensively. He borrowed, and incorporated 
iato his speech, by way of a note, what he entides, " Extracts from- 



52 

the speech of Mr. C. J. IngersolL in the House of Represetitatives .^"^ 
Well, then; my first business is to examine a little this jewel which 
ihe honorable gentleman chooses to work into his own diadem; and 
I shall do it unmoved in temper, I hope, and at the same time I do 
not mean to omit what I may consider a proper notice of the whole 
of it, and all its parts. And here, sir, is that extraordinary ebullitions- 
called by the honorable Senator "^ the speech of Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, 
in the House of Representatives." 

Mr. President, I almost wish I could find myself out of order in 
referring to it, as I imagine I should be, if it had not been that the 
honoiable member has made it his own and a part of his speech. I 
should be very glad to be compelled not to take any notice of it — tO' 
be told that I was not at liberty to know that such a speech was ever 
made ; and should thank God to know that such an ebulhtion had 
never been made out of a bar-room anywhere — and that's a theatre 
quite too high for it. JNow, sir, a large portion of this '' speech"' 
seems to be directed against the individual now addressing the Senate, 
I will read its parts and parcels, and take such notice of them as they 
deserve as I go along. Hear what the New York member says : 

Mr. Dickinson had understood there was a correspondence between the authori- 
ties at Washington and the Governor of New York to that effect ; but he particularly 
alluded to a letter addressed by Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Crittenden, At- 
torney General, at that time, directing him to proceed to New York, and take charge of 
the trial of .McLeod. He had it not then before him, and did not recollect its precise 
language, but would refer to it before he should close. He would endeavor to speak of 
the history of the past truly, and in perfect kindness, but he wished to show what w& 
had gained by negotiations with Great Britain, and who had made the concessions." 

Now, sir, either by way of giving interest to this narrative — or some- 
thing else — the gentleman from New York makes this a little more 
distinct. He says not only that Mr. Webster wrote this letter to the 
Governor of New York, with his own hand, but that he sent it by 
express. I believe the '■'■ express" matter was expressly by the gen- 
tleman from New York. 

Mr. Dickinson. Will you allow me? 

Mr. Webster. Oh! yes, I will allow you. 

Mr. Dickinson. The gentleman from New York is not at all 
responsible for the statement in the note. Nor does the gentleman 
from New York make the extracts from Mr. Ingersoll's speech any 
part of his J on the contrary, 1 staled expressly, at the time, that I 



53 

alluded to it as a very extraordinary statement. Having met wiili the 
emphatic contradiction of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, 
or what implied contradiction. I proposed to read in justification the 
remarks of Mr. Ixgersoll. The friends of the Senator in his im- 
mediate vicinity objected to have it read. I did not read the extract, 
nor was it in the report of my speech, which, in the usual way, found 
its way to the newspapers. But, as I had repeated calls for what I 
had alhided to as spoken by Mr. Ingersoll, I did append, in the 
pamphlet edition of ni}' speech, those remarks. I gave them as they 
were found in tlie newspaper, and therefore the Senator from New 
York neither added to, nor diminished, these remarks. I wish to set 
the Senator right as to this single matter of fact. 

Mr. Webster. I have only to state the fact that the additional 
falsehood in the speech of Mr. Ingersoll, as published by the mem- 
ber from New York, is not to be found in the published report. 

Mr. Dickinson. In what paper? 

Mr. Webster. In the National Intelligencer, as corrected by 
Mr. Ingersoll himself; and so it would appear that if not inserted by 
the member from New York, there is one falsehood in the case which 
.the original author was not so graceless as to retain . But I go on 
■with this speech: 

" Out of this controversy arose the arrest of Alexander McLeod. What lie mtended 
to state now, consisted of facts not yet generally known, but which would soon be made 
known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had received them in no confi- 
dence, from the best authority. When McLeod was an^ested, General Harrison had 
just died, and Mr. Tyler was not yet at home as his successor. Mr. Webster — who 
was de facto the administration — Mr. Webster wrote to the governor of New York, 
with his own hand, a letter, and sent it by express, marked " private," in which the 
governor was told that he must release McLeod, or see the magnificent commercial em- 
porium laid in ashes. The brilliant description given by the gentleman from Virginia 
of the prospective destruction of that city in the case of a war, was, in a measure, anti- 
cipated on this occasion. McLeod must be released, said the Secretary of State, or New 
Tork must be laid in ashes. The governor asked when this would be done .' The re- 
ply was forthwith. Do you not see coming on the waves of the sea the Paixhan guns.' 
and if McLeod be not released. New York will be destroyed. But, said the governor, 
-the power of pardon is vested in me, and even if he be convicted, he may be pardoned. 
Oh, no, said the Secretary, if you even try him, you will bring destruction on your- 
selves." 

Well, now, sir, I say that a series of more direct, unalloyed false- 
hoods — absolute, unqualified, entire — never appeared in anypublica- 
tion in Christendom. Every allegation here made — every one, would 



54 

entirely justify the use of that expressive monosyllable^ whicb 
some people are base enoisgli and low enough to deserve lo have 
thrown in their teeth, but which a gentleman does not often like 
to inter. Every one of ihem, from beginning to end, is false. 
There is not a particle of truth in them — there is not the slightest 
foundation for any one of tliese assertions. '• Mr. Webster wrote a 
private letter," saying that the '' Commercial Emporium would be 
laid in ashes !" •'•' Paixhan guns!" False, sir — all false. I never 
said or wrote such a thing in my life to the Governor of the State of 
New York. •' McLeod must be released." It is false. I never 
said any such thing. ''New York must be laid in ashes." It is 
false. I said or wrote no such thing. " The governor asked when 
this was to be done?" What does this mean? Why, it implies 
that the governor of New York wrote to me a letter, in answer to 
mine, inquiring when New York was to be 'Maid in ashes," and the 
reply was, -'forlhwith ." And here we have this — Mr. IngersoU him- 
self preparing this speech for the press, italicising the \\OYdfo?thwith, 
as if I had written another letter to the Governor of New York, "telling 
him" that New York Avas to be laid in ashes '^fotikwith.''^ "But^ 
said the Governor, the power of pardon is vested in me, and if he be 
convicted he may be pardoned." Here is another letter — a third let- 
ter tome! "Oh! no, said the secretary" — why, here I am writ- 
ing a fourth letter? — "if you even try him you will bring destruction 
upon yourselves." This is stated by a man,or a thing, that has a seat 
in one of the houses of Congress. I promised to keep my temper^, 
and I will. The whole concern is infinitely contemptible, and can- 
not disturb the temper of a reasonable man. But I will expose it, 
and let the country see it. Such, then, are the contents of the letters 
which this person describes as "facts not generally known, but which 
would soon be made known, for they were in progress of publication, 
and he had received them in confidence from the best authority." 
Well, I do not know where he got his "authority," unless, as sug- 
gested by a friend near me, it was from some chapters of his own 
recent work! But let me state what did occur, and prepare the 
minds of the Senate for some degree of astonishment, that any man 
in tlic world could tell such a story as this. 

When McIiCod was arrested, there was a good deal of conver- 
sation in Washington and elsewhere about what would happen. It was 



55 

a subject of very considerable conversation, and certainly of embar- 
rassment to the Government . It was hoped and expected by me , and I 
beheve by the President and other gentlemen ,thatthe Governor of New 
York would see that it was a case in which , if he were invested with au- 
thority, by the constitution and the laws of the Stale, he would recom- 
mend the entering of a nolle pros, by the prosecuting officer of the 
State of New York. It was expected that he Avould do that, and 
Gen, Harrison one day said to me, that he had received a letter from 
a. friend, in which he was informed that the Governor of New York 
had made up his mind to take that course, and that he was very glad 
of it, as it relieved the Government. It was about the time that the 
Attorney General was to proceed to New York to see how the matter 
stood, or perhaps a day or two after he had left. The case was to be 
tried immediately, within ten days, at Lockport, in the western part 
of the State of New York. Having heard this, however. Gen. Har- 
rison, directed me to w-rite a note of thanks to the Governor of New 
York, stating that he thought he had done exactly what was proper „ 
and by so doing had relieved the Government from some embarrass- 
ment, and the country from some danger of collision with a foreign 
power. And that is every thing said in that letter, or any other letter 
written by me to the Governor of the State of New York, marked 
private. The letter is here if any one wishes to see it, or to hear it 
read . 

Mr. Crittenden here suggested that the letter should be read. 

Mr. Webster. Very well. Here it is, I will read it. 

(Private.) Department of State, AVashington, March 11, 1841. 

My DEAR sir: The President has leanied, not directly, but by means of a letter from 
a friend, that you had expressed a disposition to direct a nolle prosequi in the case of the 
indictment against McLeod, on being informed by this Government tliat the British 
Government has officially avowed the attack on the Caroline as an act done by its own 
authority. The President directs me to express his thanks for the promptitude with 
which you appear disposed to perform an act, which he supposes proper for the occasion, 
and which is calculated to relieve this Government from embarrassment, and the coun- 
try from some danger of collision with a foreign power. 

You will have seen Mr. Crittenden, whom I take this occasion to commend to your 
kindest regard. 

I have the honor to be, yours, truly, 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

His Excellency W.\i. H. Seuard, Governor c/Alit" York. 

Mr. Mangum. Was that the only letter written? 



56 

Mr. Webster. Yes, the only letter; the only private letter ever 
written by me to the Governor of New York in the world. Now, 
how am I to treat such allegations? It is the falsehood "^^with cir- 
cumstance." A general statement might pass unregarded; but here 
he quotes what he calls '^^the highest authority." He states particu- 
lars. He gives all possible plausible marks of credit to the falsehood. 
How am I to treat it? Why, sir, I pronounce it an utter, an abso- 
lute falsehood, in all its parts, from heginning to end. Now, I do 
not wish to use epithets, nor to call names. But I hold up this pic- 
lure, which I have painted faintly, but truly; I hold it up to every 
man in the Senate and in the country, and I ask him to look at it, 
and then write at the bottom of it any thing which he thinks it most 
resembles. 

The speech proceeds: ^^The next step taken by the Administra- 
tion was to appoint a district attorney, who was to be charged with 
the defence of Alexander McLeod — the gentleman who was lately 
removed from office — and a fee of five thousand dollars was put into 
his hands for this purpose." False, sir— false every way. The 
Government of the United States had no more to do with the employ- 
ment of Mr. Spencer for the defence of McLeod than had the Gov- 
ernment of France. Here [taking up the corrected report of Mr. 
I. 's speech, in the Intelligencer]--here he says that, ^^enlightened 
by the gentleman from New York, he found he was mistaken on 
this point." '^Mistaken!" No more mistaken than he was in any 
of his other allegations. ^^ Mistaken!" No man who makes such 
statements is entitled to shelter himself under any notion of mistake. 
His declaration in this particular is no more false, nor any less false, than 
is the declaration that the Government of the United States appointed 
an attorney, or charged their attorney with the defence of McLeod. 
They never interfered in the slightest degree. It is true, they fur- 
nished to Mr. Spencer, as they would have furnished to any other 
counsel, the official correspondence, to prove that the Government of 
Great Britain avowed the act of the destruction of the Caroline as 
their own. '^Application was afterwards made to the chief justice of 
the State of New York for the release of McLeod . The judge did 
not think proper to grant the application. The marshal was about 
to let him go, when he was told that he must do it at his peril; and 
that if McLeod went out of prison, he should go in." I do not 



5T 

know what the marshal had to do witli the case. McLeod was iti 
prison under the authority of the State of New York. I do not 
know how it was possible that the marshal, an officer of the United 
States — could interfere. 

But there are some other matters in the speech to which I must 
refer; " He would call on the honorable member from Massa- 
chusetts (Mr. Adams) to sustain him in what he was about to 
say." I do not find that the honorable member from Massachusetts 
lias yet sustained him in these statements, and I rather think he 
never -will. He asserts that I wrote to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs of the House on that subject, asking an outfit and a salary 
for a special minister to England to settle the Oregon question. It 
is a falsehood, as I believe. I never wrote such a letter, to the best of 
my recollection. " These are facts," he says, " which no one will 
dispute." I dispute them. I say I have no recollection of them at 
all. I do not believe Mr. Adaisis has any recollection of any such 
note being written by me. If I had written such a note, I think I 
should have remembered it. Well, now, this person next proceeds 
to a topic no way connected with what he had been discussing. [Here 
Mr. W. read an extract from the speech of Mr. Ingersoll, charg- 
ing him (Mr. W.) with offering to give Oregon for free trade with 
England, in a speech made at a public dinner, in Baltimore, May, 
1843.] Here by me, sits a Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Johnson,) 
who was present at that dinner, and heard that speech, and if I want- 
ed a witness beyond my own statement and printed speech, I could 
readil}^ call upon him. In that speech, I did not mention Oregon, 
nor allude to Oregon in the remotest degree. It is an utter false- 
hood. There can be no mistake about it. The author of this 
speech (Mr. Ingersoll) was not there. If he knew anything about 
it, he must have acquired his knowledge from the printed speech; but 
in that there was not the slightest reference to Oregon — this is another 
statement, therefore , just as false as all the rest. Why , sir, hydrostatic 
pressure has no means of condensing anything into such a narrow 
compass as the author of this speech condenses falsehood. All 
steam-power does not equal it. What does he say here? Why, 
that my speech at Baltimore contained a strong reconnnendation of a 
commercial treaty with England . Why , sir, a commercial treaty with 
England to regulate the subjects upon which I was talking at Balti- 



■58 

jnore— the duties laid on goods by the two countries — was just the tiling- 
that I did not recommend, and which I there declared the treaty- 
making power had no right to make — no authority to make. He would 
represent me as holding out the idea, that the power of laying duties for 
revenue was a power that could be freely exercised by the President 
and Senate, as part of the treaty-making power ! Why, I hope that 
I know more of the Constitution than that. The ground I took was 
just the reverse of that— exactly the reverse . Sir , my correspondence , 
public and private, with England, at that time led me to anticipate, 
before long, some change in the policy of England with respect to 
certain articles, the produce of this country— some change with 
respect to the policy of the corn-laws. And 1 suggested in that 
speech how very important it would be, if things should so turn out, as 
that that great product of ours— the Indian corn— of which we raised 
live times as much as we do of wheat ; principally the product of the 
West and Southwest— especially of the State of Tennessee , which raised 
annually I do not know how many millions — I suggested, I say, the 
great good fortune that would happen, if an arrangement could be 
made by which that article of human food could be freely imported 
into England. And I said that, in the spirit that prevailed, and 
which I knew prevailed— 1 knew that the topic had been discussed 
in England — if an arrangement could be made in some proper man- 
ner to produce such a result, it would be a piece of great good for- 
tune. But, then, did I not immediately proceed to say, that that 
could not be done by treaty? I used the word '^arrangement"— 
studiously used it — to avoid the conclusion that it could be done by 
treaty. I will read what I said: 

" But with regard to the direct intercourse lietween us and England great interest is 
excited, many wishes expressed, and strong opinions entertained in favor of an attempt 
to settle duties on certain articles by treaty or arrangement. I say, gentlemen, by 'ar- 
rangement,' and I use that term by design. The Constitution of the United States leaves 
with Congress the great business of laying dvuies to support the Government. It has 
made it the duty of the House of Representatives, the popular branch of the Govern- 
ment, to take the lead on such subjects. There have been some few cases in which 
treaties have been entered into, having the effect to limit duties ; but it is not neces- 
sary—and that is an important part of the whole subject— it is not necessary to go upon 
the idea that if we come to an understanding with foreign governments upon rates of du- 
ties, that understanding can be effected only by means of a treaty ratified by the Presi- 
dent and two-thirds of the Senate, according to the form of the Constitution." 

# s * ^ * « 

" It is true a treaty is the law of the land. But, then, as the whole business of reve- 



50 

nue and general provision for all the wants of the country is undoubtedly a very peculiar 
business of the House of Represenuxiives or of Congress, I am of opinion, and always 
have been, that th^re should be no encroachment upon that power by the exercise of the 
treaty-making power, unless in case of great and evident necessity." 

There have been some cases of necessity, like that ofFmnce in the 
case of Louisiana. And yet he says that in this speech, in which 
Oregon was not mentioned at all, in which I repudiated altogether the 
levying of revenue by the treaty-making power, that I recommended 
a treaty Avith England in this very speech for the purpose of laying du- 
ties. Sir, I grow weary, weary with this tissue of falsehoods. Why- 
should I allude to representations and imputations so groundless? 
And yet, sir, there is one thing in the speech from which I will 
supplicate its author to have me excused. He says, he never 
agreed with me in politics. That is true. We never did, and 
I think we never shall agree. He said, many years ago, that if 
he had lived in the time of the Revolution, he should have been 
a tory. I don't think I should. He has said, also, very recently, 
in a printed book of his, that the Declaration of Independence was 
carried with difficulty, if not by accident. That is his estimate 
of the great charter of our national existence. We should never 
agree in politics I admit. But he said, '-'Mr. Webster is a man of 
talents." Here I beg to be excused. I can bear his abuse, but if 
he undertakes my connnendation I begin to tremble for luy reputa- 
tion. 

Sir, it would be natural to ask, what can account for all this appa- 
rent malice? Sir, I am not certain there is any malice in it. I think 
it proceeds rather from a moral obtuseness, a native want of discrimi- 
nation between truth and falsehood ; or that if there ever was a glim- 
mering perception of that kind, a long discipline in that sublime- 
school of morality, which teaches that ^^ all's fair in politics," ap- 
pears to have completely obscured it. 

Hear him further on the dismemberment of Massachusetts: " By 
this treaty," he said, " the good old Bay State, which he loved with 
fihal reverence, was disintegrated, torn asunder." '^Massachusetts 
torn asunder!" Sir, Massachusetts owned one-half of certain wild 
lands in Maine. By the Treaty of Washington, she parted widi 
these lands, at their just value, and by this she is represented as dis- 
integrating herself, tearing herself asunder ! Can absurdity go far- 
ther? But the best, or the worst, of all is, that the author of this 



60 

speech loves the old Bay State with filial reverence \ He love Massa- 
chusetts ! He, he love the Bay State ! If he loves Massachusetts, he is 
like the luckless swain, who 

" Grieves for friendship unreturned, 
" Or unregarded love." 

I can tell him, sir, that Massachusetts and all her people, of all 
-classes, hold him, and his love, and his veneration, and his speeches, 
and his principles, and his standard of truth, and his value of truth, in 
utter — what shall I say? — any thing but respect. 

Sir, this person's mind is so grotesque, so bizarre — it is rather the 
caricature of a mind, than a mind. When we see a man of some 
knowledge, and some talent, who is yet incapable of producing any 
thing true, or useful, we sometimes apply to him a phrase borrowed 
from the mechanics. We say, there is a screw loose, somewhere. 
In this case, the screws are loose all over. The whole machine is out of 
order, disjointed , ricketty, crazy, creaking, as often upside down as up- 
side up; as often hurting as helping those who use it, and generally 
incapable of any thing, but bungling and mischief. 

Mr, President, I will now take some further notice of what has 
been said by the member from New York, (Mr. Dickinson.) I ex- 
ceedingly regret — truly and unfeignedly regret — that the observations 
of the gentleman make it my duty to take some notice of them. Our 
acquaintance is but short, but it has not been unpleasant. I always 
thoureht him a man of courteous manners and kind feelins-s, but it 
cannot be expected I shall sit here and listen to statements such as the 
honorable member has made on this question, and not answer them. 
I repeat, it gives me great pain to take notice of the gentleman's 
.speech. This controversy is not mine; all can bear witness to that. 
I have not undertaken to advance, of my own accord, a single word 
about the treaty of Washington. I am forced, driven to it; and, sir, 
when I am driven to the wall, I mean to stand up and malce batde, 
even against die most formidable odds. What I find fault with is, 
that throughout his speech, the honorable member continually makes 
the remark that he is true to the history of the past; he wishes to tell 
the truth, that he is making a search after truth, and yet makes, in 
fact, so much misstatement. If this l)e a specimen of the honorable 
-Senator's researches after trudi, a collection of his researches would 
be a very amusing compilation. If the honorable member, during 



61 

the relaxation from his duties here, would put his researches together ^ 
I undertake to say they would sell well. The Harpers would 
make half a fortune out of them. The people of the United 
States will pay well for what gives them a good hearty laugh;, 
and it is no matter if that effect be produced, whether it be by a story 
by Dickens, by a caricature from Punch, or a volume of " researches 
after truth ," by an honorable member from New York. 

Now, sir, 1 propose to follow the honorable member a few steps in 
the course of his researches. I have already said that in two or three 
passages of his speech the gentleman expresses his strong desire to 
state the facts. [Here Mr. W . read a quotation from the speech of 
Mr. Dickinson.] He says there are four things we have lost by the 
treaty of Washington. I do not readily find the passages, but the 
amount is, that we made a very important concession of territory to 
England under that treaty. Now,tliat treaty proposed to be a treaty 
of concession on both sides. The gentleman states concessions made 
by the United States, but entirely forgets, "in his researches after 
truth," to state those made on the other side. He takes no notice of 
the cession of Rouse's Point; or of a strip of land a hundred miles 
long, on the border of the State of New York. His notion of histori- 
cal truthsis, to state all on one side of the story, and forget all therest.^ 
That is a system of research after truth which will hardly commend 
itself to the respect of most men. But, sir, what I wish principally 
to do now, is to turn to another part of this speech. I before gave 
the gentleman notice that I would call upon him for the authority 
upon which he made such a statement, as that an attempt was made 
at Washington by members of the Government to stop the course of 
justice; and now. if the gentleman is ready with the proofs, I would 
be glad to have them. 

Mr. Dickinson. I will reserve what I have to say until the gen- 
tleman has done, when I shall produce it to his satisfaction. 

Mr. Webster. I undertake to say, no authority will be produced^ 
or is producible, djat there were attempts made at Washington to in- 
terfere with the trial of McLeod. What occurred ? It was suggested 
by the President to Governor Seward , that the President was grati- 
fied that he had come to the conclusion to enter a 7iolle prosequi in 
the case of McLeod. Weis that a palpable interference with judicial 
authority? Was that a resistance of the ordinary process of law? 



C2 

The Government of the United States had nothing at all to do 
with the trial of McLeod in the New York courts, except to see 
that he was furnished with the proof of facts necessary to show his 
defence. But I wish to know in what school the gentleman has 
been taught that if a man is in prison , and his counsel moves to 
have him brought up on the great writ of habeas corpus, that that 
is any resistance of judicial process in favor of the prisoner? I 
dare say the honorable gentleman among his authorities, can pro- 
duce none to show such to be an interference. He may call what 
he likes a direct and palpable interference. He may apply the 
term to the iourney of the Attorney General to Albany, or to any 
other act or occurrence. But that does not prove it so. I hold the 
gentleman responsible to prove that the Government did some act, 
or acts, which the common-sense of men holds to be a palpable and 
direct interference. I say there was none. He quotes the letter of 
instructions to the Attorney General. That proposes no interference. 
That letter says to the Attorney General, that if the case were pend- 
ing in the courts of the United States, so that the President could 
have control over it, he would direct the prosecuting officer to enter 
a 7iol. pros.; but as it belonged entirely to the Governor of New York, 
it is referred to the Governor himself. That is the substance, in this 
respect, of the letter which the Attorney General carried to the Governor 
of New York, and theje was not another act done by authority at Wash- 
ington in reference to this matter, and I call upon the gentleman at his 
leisure to produce his authority for his statements. One word more in 
answer to the remarks the gentleman made this morning, and I shall 
leave him. The ebullition which I have been commenting upon, and 
which is as black and foul-mouthed as ever was ejected from any 
thing standing on two legs, was published a few days before the hon- 
orable member from New York made his speech. He referred to it, 
and stated a fact contained in it. 

I was here in my seat and heard it, and I rose and told the honora- 
ble member it was an utter falsehood. He knew I denounced it as 
an absolute calumny. He saw on the face of that statement that, if 
it was true, it was utterly disgraceful to me. It was, he said, dis- 
graceful to the country, what was done; and if it was disgraceful to 
the country, it must be so to me. I stated my denial of the truth 
of that speech of Mr. Ingersoll in the strongest terms — in the most 



63 

empliaUc language. What then ? The very next day he proceed- 
ed to read that speech in the Senate; hut it was ohjected to, and was 
not read. But afterwards, as he tells us, he sent iiis own speech to 
press, and inserted this speech of Ingersoll, knowing that I had pro- 
nounced it a falsehood . Yes , miserable , calumnious , and scandalous 
as it was, he snatched at it eagerly, and put it in his own speech, and 
then circulated it to the full extent of his ability . I happened to come 
into this chamber one day when the Senate was not in session, and 
found our agents and messengers franking and directing that speech to 
all parts of New York; and I do not doubt that enough of it was sent 
by him into Broome county , and the adjacent counties, to fill a small 
barn; and pretty bad fodder it would be. And now I beg to know 
if that is friendly, candid, or just? Does any man think he can 
stand up here with the proper dignity of a Senator of the United 
States, and pursue such a course? He knew the speech he quoted 
was calumnious. He heard it pronounced utterly false. 

Mr. Dickinson. Only one single point in it was answered or de- 
nied by the Senator. That was, that the fee of the Attorney Gene- 
ral was not paid by the Government of the United States. I referred 
to the statements because I had a right to do it, and thinking it was 
pUrt of my duty. 

Mr. Webster. I do not say what a man has a right to do 

Mr. Dickinson . As a matter of propriety, then 

Mr. Webster. Well, I say it was not proper to do it. Suppose 
I had dragged out of a ditch some calumny on the gentleman which 
he denied, would it be pioper in me to persist in it after that denial? 

Mr. Dickinson. The speech quoted was documentary matter, 
and I had a right and fall liberty to lay such before the country. 

Mr. Webster. That is true of documentary history, but when 
did that speech become documentary history? 

Mr. Dickinson. It was considered so by me, because it was 
printed and went to the public from an official source. 

Mr. Webster. Indeed! So any falsehood, any vile calumny, that 
is raked up, no matter what it is, if printed, is ^'documentary history!" 
The gentleman's own speech, according to that, is already docu- 
mentary history! Now, sir, I repeat again, that it has given me pain 
to be driven into this controversy— great pain; but I repeat also that 
if I am attacked here for any thing done in the course of my public 



64 

life, I shall defend myself. My public reputation, be it what it may, 
has been earned by thirty years service in these halls. It is dearer to 
me than life itself, and till life is extinct I will defend it. 

I will now allude, Mr. President, as briefly as possible, to some 
other provisions of the Treaty of Washington. The article for the 
delivery of fugitives fiom justice has been assailed. It has been, 
said that an innocent woman had been sent back to Scotland, under 
its provisions. Why, I believe the fact is, that a woman had murder- 
ed her husband, or souie relativ^e in Scotland, and fled to this coun- 
try. She was pursued, demanded, and carried back, and from some 
defect in the ordinary regularity of evidence, or some such cause-, 
which not unfrequently occurs in criminal trials, she was acquitted. 
But, sir, I undertake to say, that the article for the extradition of offen- 
ders, contained in the treaty of 1842, if there were nothing else in the 
treaty of any importance, has of itself been of more value to this coun- 
try, and is of more value to the progress of civilization, the cause of 
humanity, and the good understanding between nations, than could 
be readily computed. What was the state and condition of this coun- 
try, sir, on the borders and frontiers at the time of this treaty? 
Why, it was the time when the ''patriot societies" or "Hunters' 
Lodges" were all in operation — when companies were formed and oir- 
flcers appointed by secret associations, to carry on the war in Canada; 
and as I have said already, the disturbances were so frequent and so 
threatening, that the United States Government despatched General 
Scott to the frontier to make a draught on New York for militia in 
order to preserve the peace of the border. And now, sir, what was 
it that repressed these disorders, and restored the peace of the border? 
Nothing, sir, nothing but a provision between the two Governments 
that if those ''patriots" and "barn-burners" went from one side to 
the other to destroy their neighbors' property, trying to bring on a war 
all the time — for that was their object — they should be delivered up 
to be punished. As soon as that provision was agreed to, the disturb- 
ances ceased, on one side and on the other. They were heard of no 
more. In the formation of this clause of the treaty I had the advan- 
tage of consultation with a venerable friend near me, one of the mem- 
bers from Michigan, [Mr. Woodbridge.] He pressed me not to fore- 
go the opportunity of introducing some such provision. He exam- 
ined it; and I will ask him if he knows any other cause for the in- 



65 

stantaneous suppression of these border difficulties than this treaty- 
provision ? 
Mr. WooDBRiDGE rose, and said, in reply, as follows : 
Mr. President: I may not disregard the reference which the gen- 
tleman has done me the honor to make to me, in regard to tfie in- 
considerable part which I deemed it ray duty to take, in the matter 
alluded to. A brief statement of some facts which occurred, and a 
glance, simply, at the condition of that border country from which 
I come, will be all that the occasion seems to demand. 

That part of Canada with which the people of Michigan are 
brought more immediately in contact, extends from the head of Lake 
Erie to Point Edwards at the lower extremity of Lake Theron; a dis- 
tance of about 100 miles. Along this intermediate distance, the 
Straits of Detroit and of Sinclair, furnish every imaginable facility for 
the escape of fugitives. For their entire length, the shores of those 
Straits, on either side, exhibit lines of dense and continuous settle- 
ment. Their shores are lined, and their smooth surface covered with 
boats and vessels of all dimensions and descriptions — from the bark 
canoe, to the steamer of a thousand tons. If the perpetrator of crime 
can reach a bark canoe, or a light skiff, and detach himself from the 
shore, he may in a few minutes defy pursuit — for he will be within 
a foreign jurisdiction. In such a condition of things no society can 
be safe unless there be some power to reclaim fugitives from justice. 
While your colonial government existed there, and its executive ad- 
ministration, under the control of this National Government, was 
in the hands of my Hon. colleague, a conventional arrangement- 
informal undoubtedly in its character — was entered into by him with 
the authorities of Canada, sustained by local legislation on both 
sides— by which these evils were greatly lessened. When the pre- 
sent State government took the place of the territorial government, 
this arrangement of necessity ceased; and then, the evils alluded to 
were greatly aggravated , and became eminently dangerous. Shortly 
before the first session of Congress, at which I attended, after the in- 
auguration of Gen. Harrison, a very aggravated case of crime occur- 
red, and its perpetrators, as usual, escaped into Canada. It was 
made the subject of an official communication to the State legislature. 
And soon after my arrival here, I deemed it to be my duty to lay the 
5 



66 

matter before the Secretary of State, wiih a view to the adop- 
tion of some appropriate convention with Great Britain. 

The Hon. Senator — then Secretary of State — was pleased to receive 
the suggestion favorably; but suggested to me the expediency of ob- 
taining, if practicable, the sense of the Senate on the subject. Ac- 
cordingly, I afterwards introduced a resolution here, having that ob- 
ject in view, and it was referred to the consideration of the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Relations — of which an Hon. Senator from Virginia, 
not now a member of the Senate, was chairman. 

Mr. Rives expressed himself very decidedly in favor of the pro- 
position. But, negotiations having been begun, or being about 
to commence with Lord Ashburton, it was not deemed expedient, I 
believe, that it should then be made matter of discussion in the Sen- 
ate. I had not ceased to feel very earnest solicitude on the subject; 
and, as the negotiation approached its termination, Mr. Webster did 
me the honor to send to me the project of that article of the treaty 
which relates to the subject. He desired me to consider it and to 
exhibit it, confidentially perhaps, to such Senators as came from bor- 
der States, for their consideration, and for such modification of its 
teiTOs and scope as they might deem expedient. This I did. The 
form and scope of the article met, I believe, with the approbation of 
all to whom I showed it. Nor was any modification suggested, ex- 
cept perhaps one very immaterial one, suggested by an honorable 
Senator from New York, Of all this I advised Mr. Webster, and 
the project became afterwards an article of the treaty, with but little 
if any variation . I believe lean throw no more light on the sub- 
ject, sir. But the honorable Senator, having intimated to me that, 
in his discussion of the subject, he miglii , pcrJiaps , have occasion to 
refer to the part I took in the matter, I have provided myself with 
the copy of the message to the Legislature of Michigan, of which 
I had in the beginning made use, and which, in order to show 
the extent of the evil referred to, and the necessity which existed for 
some treaty stipulation on the subject, I ask the Secretary to read.* 

*The Secretary here read an extract from Mr. Woodbridge, when Governor of Mich- 
igan, to the legislature of that State, calling its attention earnestly to the facilities which 
exist along the interior boundaries of the United States for the escape of fugitives from 
justice; and saying, that a very recent o.cirrence, of the most painful and atrocious cha- 
racter, liad compelled his own attention to it, and recommending, in strong terms, that 



67 . 

(The extract having been read, Mr. W. then proceeded:) I havd 
now only to add my entire and unquahfied conviction, that no act of 
the legislative or treaty-making power that I have ever known, has 
ever been more successful in its operation than this article of the 
treaty; nor could any provision have been attended by more happy 
consequences upon the peace and safety of society in that remote 
frontier. 

Mr. Webster resumed. I am happy to find that, in its operation, 
the provision has satisfied those who felt an interest in its adoption. 
But I may now state, I suppose without offence and without cavil, 
that since the negotiation of this treaty, containing this article, we 
have negotiated treaties with other governments of Europe containing 
similar provisions, and that between other governments of Europe them- 
selves, treaties have been negotiated containing that provision — a pro- 
vision never before known to have existed in any of the treaties be- 
tween European nations. I am happy to see, therefore, that it has 
proved itself to be useful to the citizens of the United States, for 
whose benefit it was devised and adopted; that it has proved itself 
worthy of favor and imitation in the judgment of the most enlight- 
ened nations of Europe; and that it has never been complained of 
by any body, except by murderers, and fugitives, and felons them- 
selves. 

Now, sir, comes the matter of the African squadron, to which I 
am induced to turn my attention for a moment, out of sincere respect 
to the member from Arkansas, [Mr. Sevier,] who suggested the 
other day that to that article he had objection. There is no man 
whose opinions are more independent than those of that gentle- 
man, and no one maintains them with more candor. But, if I un- 
derstood him, he appears to think that that article gave up the right 
of search. What does he mean? We never claimed that right. 
We had no such right to give up ; or does it mean exactly the oppo- 
site of what he says — that it yielded to England her claim of such right? 
No such thing. The arrangement made by this treaty was Resigned 
to carry into effect those stipulations in the treaty of Ghent which we 
thought binding on us, as wdlas to effect an object important to this 

the pecuUm- situation of Michigan, in this respect, should be laid before Congress, with 
a view of urging the expediency of some negotiation on the subject, between the JJnited 
States and England. 



. 68 

country^ to the interests of humanity, and to the general cause 
of civilization throughout the world, without raising the difficulty 
of the right of search. The object of it was to accomplish all 
that, in a way that should -avoid the possibility of subjecting our 
vessels, under any pretence, to the right of search. I will not dwell 
on this. But allow me to state the sentiments on this subject of per- 
sons in the service of the United States abroad, whose opinions are en- 
titled to respect. There is a letter sent to the Department of State 
by Mr. Wheaton, dated Berhn, November 15th, 1842. [Mr. W. 
lead from this letter an extract expressive of the writer's approbation 
of this article of the treaty as particulaily well adapted to the end 
proposed, and by which for the first time the policy of the United 
States in this respect might be said to have exercised a decided influ- 
ence upon that of Europe. Appendix VII.] 

I am quite willing, (said Mr. W.) to rest on this opinion of 
Mr. Wheaton, as to the propriety and safety, the security and the 
wisdom of the article in this treaty respecting the suppression of 
the African slave trade by a squadron of ^our own, against any 
little artillery that may be used against it here. I beg the gentle- 
man's pardon, I did not allude to his opinion, I have for him the 
highest respect. 1 was thinking of what is said in some of these 
"documents." But I need not stop here. Upon the appearance 
of this treaty between the United States and England, the lead- 
ing States of Europe did, in fact, alter their whole policy on 
this subject. The treaty of 1841 between the Five Powers had 
not been ratified by France. There was so much opposition -to 
it in France, on the ground that it gave the right of search to the 
English cruisers, that the king and M. Gui2rot, though the treaty 
was negotiated according to their instructions, did not choose to 
ratify it. I have stated the cause of popular indignation against it. 
Well, what was done? I'll tell you. When this treaty of Washing- 
ton became known in Europe, the wise men of the two countries, 
who wisjpied to do all they could to suppress the African slave-trade, 
and to do it in a manner securing in the highest degree the immunity 
of the flag of either, and the supremacy of neither, agreed to abandon 
the quintuple treaty of 1841 — the unratified treaty — they gave it up. 

They adopted the treaty of Washington as their model; and I have 
now in my hand the convention between France and England, signed in 



69 

• 
London on the 29th May ^ 1 845, the articles of which, in respect to the 

manner of patting an end to the slave trade embody ^ exactly , the provi- 
sions contained in the treaty of Washington. Thus it is seen that 
France has borrowed, from the treaty stipulations between the United 
States and England, the mode of fulfilling her own duties and accom- 
plishing her own purpose , in perfect accordance witli the immunity of 
her flag. I need hardly say , sir, that France is the nation which was ear- 
liest, and has been most constantly wakeful, in her jealousy of the su- 
premacy of the maritime power of England. She has kept her eye on 
it, steadily, for centuries. The immunity of flags is a deep principle; 
it is a sentiment — one may almost say it is a passion, with all the people 
of France. And France, jealous, quick of perception, thoroughly 
hostile to any extension of the right of maritime search or visit, under 
any pretences whatever, has seen, in the example of the treaty of 
Washington, a mode of fulfilling her duties,* for the suppiession of, 
the African slave trade, without disturbing the most sensitive of all 
her fears. 

Allow me, sir, to read the S and 9 articles of the treaty of 
Washington, and the 1st, 2d, and 3d articles of the convention be- 
tween England and France. [Mr. W. read these articles, vide Ap- 
pendix VIII.] 

Mr. President, there is another topic on which I have to say a few 
words. It has been said that the treaty of Washington, and the ne- 
gotiations accompanying it, leave the great and interesting question of 
impressment where they found it. With all humility and modesty, 
I must beg to express my dissent from that opinion. I must be per- 
mitted to say, that the correspondence connected with the negotiation 
of that treaty, although impressment was not in the treaty itself, has, 
in tlie judgment of the world, or at least of considerable and re- 
spectable persons in the world, been regarded as not having left the 
question of impressment where it found it, but as having advanced the 
true doctrine in opposition to it, to a higher and stronger foundation. 
The letter addressed on that subject from the Department of State, 
to the British plenipotentiary, and his answer, are among the papers. 
I only wish the letter to be read. It recites the general history of the 
question between England and the United States. Lord Ashburton 
had no authority to make stipulations on the subject; but that is a cir- 
cumstance which I do not legret , because I do not deem the subject 



TO 

as one at all proper for treaty stipulation. [Mr. W. here read extracts 
from the letter, and among others this:] (Appendix IX.) 

" In the early disputes between the two Governments, on this so long contested to- 
pic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of this De- 
partment declared, that " the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being American shall 
be evidence that the seamen on board are such. 

" Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful recon- 
sideration now had of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and 
no pi^esent interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully convinced this 
Government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the only rule which can be 
adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and honor of the United States, and 
the security of their citizens. That nde announces, therefore, what will here- 
after be the jorinciple maintained by their Government. In every regularly docu- 
mented American merchant vessel, the crew who navigate it will find their 
protection in the flag which is cter them." 

And then proceeded : This declaration will stand . Not on account 
jof any particular ability displayed in the letter with which it concludes; 
still less on account of the name subscribed to it. But it will stand, 
because it announces the true principles of public law; because it 
announces the great doctrine of the equality and independence 
of nations upon the seas; and because itannounces the detern)ination 
of the Government and the people of the United States to uphold 
those principles, and to maintain that doctrine, through good report 
and through evil report, forever. We shall negotiate no more, nor 
attempt to negotiate more, about impressment. We shall not treat, 
hereafter, of its limitation to parallels of latitude and longitude. We 
shall not treat of its allowance, or disallowance, in broad seas, or nar- 
row seas. We shall think no more of stipulating for exemption from 
its exercise, of some of the persons composing crews. Henceforth , the 
deck of every American vessel is inaccessible, for any such purpose. 
It is protected, guarded, defended, by the declaration wh.ich I have read, 
and that declaration will stand. 

. Sir, another most important question of maritime law, growing out 
of the case of the ^' Creole," and other similar cases, was the subject 
of a letter to the British plenipotentiary, and of an answer from him. 
An honorable member from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) had 
taken, as is well known, a great interest in the matter involved in that 
question. He had expressed Jiis opinion of its importance here, and 
had been sustained by the Senate. Occasion was taken of Lord Ash- 
burton's mission to communicate, to him and to his Government^ 



7-1 

the opinions which this Goyemment entertained ; and I would now 
ask the honorable member if any similar cause of complaint has since 
arisen. [Mr. Calhoun said he had heard of none.] I trusty sir, that 
none will arise hereafter. I refer to the letter to Lord Ashburton on 
this subject, as containing what the American Government regarded 
as the true principle of the maritime law, and to his very sensible and 
proper answer. 

Mr. President, I have reached the end of these remarks, and the 
completion of my purpose ; and I am now ready , sir, to put the ques- 
tion to the Senate, and to the country, whether the northeastern boun- 
dary has not been fairly and satisfactorily settled ; w4iether proper satis- 
faction and apology have not been obtained, for an aggression on the 
soil and territory of the United States ; whether proper and safe stip- 
ulations have not been entered into, for the fulfilment of the duty of 
the Government, and for meeting the earnest desire of the people, in 
the suppression of ihe slave trade ; whether, in pursuance of these 
stipulations, a degree of success, in the attainment of that object, has 
not been reached, wholly unknown before ; whether crimes, disturb- 
ing the peace of nations, have not been suppressed ; whether the 
safety of the southern coasting trade has not been secured ; whether 
impressment has not been struck out from tlie list of contested ques- 
tions among nations- and finally, and more than all, whether any 
thing has been done to tarnish the lustre of the American name and 
character ? 

Mr. President, my best services, like those of every other good 
citizen, are due to my country ; and I submit them, and their results^ 
in all humility, to her judgment. But standing here, to day, in the 
Senate of the United States, and speaking in behalf of the Adminis- 
tration of which I formed a part, and in behalf of the two Houses of 
Congress, who sustained that Administration, cordially and effectu- 
ally, in every thing relating to this day's discussion, I am willing to 
appeal to the public men of the age, whether, in 1S42, and in the 
city of Washington, something was not done for the suppression of 
crime, for the true exposition of the principles of public law, for the 
freedom and security of commerce on the ocean, and for the peace of 
the world? 



APPENDIX 



TO 



.m. WEBSTER'S VINDICATION 



OF THE 



TEEATY OF WASHINGTON. 



APPENDIX 



Mr > Everett to Mr. Webster. — [Extracts.] 

Legation of the United States, 

London, December 31, 1841. 

« * * * #•» # » 

At a late hour on the evening of the 26th, I received a note from the Earl of Aber- 
deen, requesting an interview for the following day, when I met him at the Foreign Of- 
fice, agreeably to the appointment. After one or two general remarks upon the difficulty 
of bringing about an adjustment of the points of controversy between the Governments, 
by a continuance of the discussions hitherto carried on, he said that Her Majesty's Go- 
vernment had determined to take a decisive step towards that end, by sending a special 
minister to the United States, with a full power to make a final settlement of all matters 
in dispute. ##»#»*** 

This step was determined on from a sincere and earnest desire to bring the matter so 
long in controversy to an amicable settlement; and if, as he did not doubt, the same dis- 
position existed at Washington, he thought this step afforded the most favorable, and, 
indeed, the only means of carrying it into effect. In the choice of the individual for the 
mission. Lord Aberdeen added, that he had been mainly influenced by a desire to select 
a person who would be peculiarly acceptable in the United States, as well as eminently 
qualified for the trust, and that he persuaded himself he had found one who, in both re- 
spects, was all that could be wished. He then named Lord Ashburton, who had con- 
sented to undertake the mission. 

Although this communication was of course wholly unexpected to me, I felt no hesi- 
tation in expressing the great satisfaction with which I received it. I assured Lord 
Aberdeen, that the President had nothing more at heart than an honorable adjustment of 
the matters in discussion between the two countries ; that 1 was persuaded a more accep- 
table selection of a person for the important mission proposed could not have been made; 
and that 1 anticipated the happiest results from this overture. 

Lord Aberdeen rejoined, that it was more than an overture ; that Lord Ashburton 
would go with full powers to make a definitive arrangement on every point in discussion 
between the two countries. He was aware of the difficulty of some of them, particu- 
larly what had incorrectly been called the right of search, which he deemed the most 
difficult of all ; but he was willing to confide this and all other matters in controversy to 
Lord Ashburton's discretion. He added, that they should have been quite willing to 
come to a general arrangement here, but they supposed I had not full powers for such a 
purpose. 

This measure being determined on. Lord Aberdeen said he presumed it would be hard- 
ly worth while for us to continue tlie correspondence here, on matters in dispute between 
the Governments. He, of course, was quite willing to consider and reply to any state- 
mrn' 1 might think proper to make on any subject; but, pending the negotiations that 
might take place at Washington, he supposed no benefit could result from a simultaneoua 
discussion here. 



II. 

Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. — [Extract.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, January 29, 1842. 

"The President has read Lord Aberdeen's note to you of the 20th of December, in 
reply to Mr. Stevenson's note to Lord Palmerston of the 21st of October, and thinks you. 



76 

were quite right in acknowledging the dispassionate tone of that paper. It is only by the 
exercise of calm reason tliat truth can be arriyed at, in questions of a complicated nature ^ 
and between States, each of which understands" and respects the intelligence and the 
power of the other, there ought to be no unwillingness to follow its guidance. At the 
present day, no State is so high as that the principles of its intercourse with other na- 
tions are above question, or its conduct above scrutiny. On the contrary, the whole civi- 
lized world, now vastly better informed on such subjects than in former ages, and alive 
and sensible to the principles adopted and the purposes avowed by the leading States, 
necessarily constitutes a tribunal, august in character and formidable in its decisions. 
And it is before this tribunal, and upon the rules of natural justice, moral propriety, the 
usages of modern times, and the prescriptions of puljlic law, that Governments which 
respect themselves and respect their neighbors must be prepared to discuss, with candor 
and with dignity, any topics which may have caused differences to spring up between 
them. 

"Your despatch of the 31st December announces the important i"ntelligence of a spe- 
cial minister from England to the United States, with full powers to settle every matter 
in dispute between the two Governments ; and the President directs me to say, that he 
regards this proceeding as originating in an entirely amicable spirit, and that it will be 
met, on his part, with perfectly corresponding sentiments. The high character of Lord 
Ashburton is well known to this Government; and it is not doubted that he will enter 
on the dvities assigned him, not only with the advantages of much knowledge and expe- 
rience in public affairs, but with a true desire to signalize his mission by assisting to 
place the peace of the two countries on a permanent basis. He will be received with 
the respect due to his own character, the character of the Government which sends him, 
and the higii importance, to both countries, of the subjects intrusted to his negotiation. 

"The President approves your conduct, in not pursuing, in England, the discussion of' 
questions which are now to become the subjects of negotiation liere." 



III. 

Mr. Wthsler to Gov. Fairfield. 

Department of State, 

Washington, 11th April, 1842. 

Your excellency is aware that, previous to March, 1841, a negotiation had been going 
on for some time between the Secretary of State of the United States, under the direc- 
tion of the President, and the British minister accredited to this Government, having for 
its object the creation of a joint commission for settling the controversy respecting the 
northeastern boundary of the United States, with a provision for an ultimate reference to 
arbitrators, to be appointed by some of the sovereigns of Europe, in case an arbitratioa 
should become necessary. On the leading features of a convention for this purpose the 
two Governments were agreed; but, on several matters of detail, the parties differed, 
and appear to have been interchanging their respective views and opinions, projects and 
counter-projeots, without coming to a final arrangement, down to August, 1840. Vari- 
ous causes, not now necessary to be explained, arrested the progress of the negotiation 
at that time, and no considerable advance has since been made in it. 

It seems to have been understood on both sides that, one arbitration having failed, it 
was the duty of the two parties to proceed to institute another, according to the spirit of 
the treaty of Ghent and other treaties ; and the President has felt it to be his duty, un- 
less some new course should be proposed, to cause the negotiation to be resumed, and 
pressed to its conclusion. But I have now to inform your excellency that Lord Ashbur- 
ton, a minister plenipotentiary and special, has arrived at the seat of^ the Govermnent of 
the United States, charged with full powers from his sovereign to negotiate and settle 
the different matters in discussion between the two Governments. I have further to 
state to you, that he has ofHcially announced to this Department that, in regard to the 
boundary question, he has authority to treat for a conventioi'ial line, or line by agree- 
ment, on such terms and conditions, and with such mutual considerations and equiva- 
lents, as may be thought just and equitable, and that he is ready to enter upon a negotia- 



77 

iion for such conventional line, so soon as this Government shall say it is authorized and 
ready, on its ]iart, to commence such negotiation. 

Under these circumstances, the President has felt it to be his duty to call the serious 
attention of the Governments of Maine and Massachusetts to the subject, and to submit 
to those Governments the propriety of their co-operation, to a certain extent, and in a 
certain form, in an endeavor to terminate a controversy already of so long duration, and 
which seems very likely to be still considerably further protracted before the desired end 
of a final adjustment shall be attained, unless a shorter course of arriving at that end be 
adopted than such as has heretofore been pursued, and as the two Governments are still 
pursuing. 

Yet, without the concurrence of the two States whose rights are more immediately 
-concerned, both having an interest in the soil, and one of them in the jurisdiction and 
government, the duty of this Government will be to adopt no new course, but, in com- 
pliance with treaty stipulations, and in furtherance of what has already been done, to 
iiasten the pending negotiations as fast as possible. 

But. the President thinks it a highly desirable object to prevent flie delays necessarily 
incident to any settlement of the question by these means. Such delays are great and 
imavoidable. It has been found that an exploration and examination of the several lines 
constitute a work of three years. The existing commission for making such exploration, 
under the authority of the United States, has been occupied two summers, and a very 
considerable portion of the work remains still to be done. If a joint commission should 
be appointed, and should go throug^Ii the same work, and the commissioners should dis- 
agree, as is very possible, and an arbitration on that account become indispensable, the 
arbitrators might find it necessary to make an exploration and survey themselves, or 
cause the same to be done by others of their own appointment. If to these causes, ope- 
rating to postpone the final decision, be added the time necessary to appoint arbitrators, 
and for their preparation to leave Europe for the service, and the various retarding inci- 
dents always attending such operations, seven or eight years constitute perhaps the short- 
est period within which we can look for a final result. In the mean time, great expenses 
have been incurred, and further expenses cannot be avoided. It is well known that the 
controversy has brought heavy charges upon Maine herself, to the remuneration or pro- 
per settlement of which she cannot be expected to be indifferent. The exploration by 
the Government of the United States has already cost a hundred thousand dollars, and 
the charge of another summer's work is in prospect. These facts may be sulficient to 
form a probable estimate of the whole expense likely to be incurred before the contro- 
versy can be settled by arbitration ; and our experience admonishes us that even another 
arbitration might possibly fail. 

The opinion of this Government upon the justice and validity of the American claim 
has been expressed at so many times, and in so many forms, that a repetition of that 
opinion is not necessary. But the .subject is a subject in dispute. The Government has 
agreed to make it matter of reference and arbitration ; and it must fulfil that agreement 
unless another mode for settling the controversy should be resorted to, with the hope of 
producing a speedier decision. The President proposes, then, that the Governments of 
Maine and Massachusetts should severally appoint a commissioner or commissioners, 
empowered to confer witli the authorities of this Government upon a conventional line, 
or line by agreement, with its terms, conditions, considerations, and equivalents, with an 
understanding that no such hne will be agreed upon without the assent of such commis- 
sioners. 

This mode of proceeding, or some other which shall express assent beforehand, seems 
indispensable, if any negotiation for a conventional line is to be had ; since, if happily a 
treaty should be the result of the negotiation, it can only be submitted to the Senate of 
the United States for ratification. 

Itis a subject of deep and sincere regret to the President, that the British plenipoten- 
tiary did not arrive in the country and make known his powers in time to have made 
this communication before the annual session of the Legislatures of the two States had 
been brought to a close. He perceives and laments the inconvenience which may be 
experienced from re-assembling those Legislatures. But the British mission is a special 
one -,11 does not supersede the resident mission of the British Government at Washington, 
and its stay in the United States is not expected to be long. In addition to these consid- 
erations, it is to be suggested that more than four months of the session of Congress have 
already passed, and it is highly desirable, if any treaty for a conventional line should be 
-ajreed on, it should be concluded before the session shall terminate, not only becauao of 



78 

the necessity of the ratification of the Senate, but also because it is not impossible that 
measures may be thought advisable, or become important, which can only be accom- 
plished by the authority of both Houses. 

These considerations, in addition to the importance of the subject, and a firm convic- 
tion in the mind of the President that the interests of both countries, as well as the inter- 
ests of the two States more immediately concerned, require a prompt effort to bring this 
dispute to an end, constrain him to express an earnest hope that your excellency will 
convene the Legislature of Maine, and submit the subject to its grave and candid delibe- 
rations. I am, &c., 

DANIEL WEBSTER. 

His Excellency John Fairfield, 

Governor of Maine. 



IV. 

Captain Talcott to Mr. Webster. 

Washington, July 14, 1842. 

Sir: The territory within the lines mentioned by you contains eight hundred and nine- 
ty-three square miles, equal to five hundred and seventy-one thousand five hundred and twenty 
acres. It is a long and narrow tract upon the mountains or highlands, the distance front. 
Lake Pohenagamook to the Metjarmette portage being one hundred and ten miles. The 
territory is barren, and without timber of value, and I should estimate that nineteei> 
parts out of twenty are unfit for cultivation. Along eighty miles of this territory the 
highlands throw up into irregular eminences, of different heights, and, though observing 
a general northeast and southwest direction, are not brought well into line. Some of the 
elevations are over three thousand feet above the sea. 

The formation is pi-imitive siliceous rock, with slate resting upon it, around the basis. 
Between the eminences are morasses and swamps, throughout which beds of moss of 
luxuriant growth rest on and cover the rocks and earth beneath. The growth is such as 
is usual in mountain regions on this continent, in high latitudes. On some of the ridges 
and eminences birch and maple are found ; on others, spruce and fir ; and, in the swamps, 
spruce intermixed with cedar; but the wood everywhere is insignificant, and of stinted 
growth. It will readily be seen, therefore, that for cultivation, or as capable of furnish- 
ing the means of human subsistence, the lands are of no value. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

A. TALCOTT, Commissioner. 

Hon. Daniel Webster, Secretary of State. 



Mr. Webster to Lord ^ishburton. — [Extract.] 

Department of State, 

Washington, July . 27, 1842. 

The act of which the Government of the United States complains is not to be con- 
sidered as justifiable or unjustifiable, as the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of 
the employment in which the " Caroline" was engaged may be decided the one way or 
the other. That act is of itself a wrong, and an offence to the sovereignty and dignity 
of thfi-United States, being a violation of their soil and territory — a wrong for which, 
to this day, no atonement, or even apology, has been made by her majesty's Govern- 
jnent. Your lordship cannot but be aware that self-respect, the consciousness of inde- 
pendence and national equality, and a sensitiveness to whatever may touch the honor 
of the country — a sensitiveness which this Government will ever feel and ever cultivate 
— make this a matter of high importance, and I must be allowed to ask for it your lord- 
ship's grave consideration. 

I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant, 

DANIEL WEBSTER, 

Lord AsHEURTON, (See, &c,,&,c. 



79 

Lord AMwrlon to J\ir. fFe6s<cr.— [Extract ] 

Washington, My 28, 1842. 

Although it is believed that a candid and impartial consideration of the whole history 
of this unfortunate event will lead to the conclusion, tliat there were grounds of justifi- 
cation as strong as were ever presented in such cases, and above all, that no sUght of the 
,authority of the United States was ever intended; yet, it must be admitted, that there 
was in the hurried execution of this necessary service a violation of territory, and I am 
instructed to assure you that her Majesty's Government consider this as a most serious 
fact, and that fai- from thinking that an event of this kind should be lightly risked, they 
would unfeignedly deprecate its recurrence. Looking back to what passed at this dis- 
tance of time, what is, perhaps, most to be regi-etted, is, that some explanation and apol- 
ogy for this occurrence was not immediately made ; this, with a frank explanation of 
the necessity of the case might, and probably would, have prevented much of the exas- 
peration, and of the subsequent co»iplaints and recriminations to which it gave rise. 



YI. 

Instructions to Mr. Crittenden. 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 15th, 1841. 

Sir: Alexander McLeod, a Canadian subject of her Britannic Majesty, is now impri- 
soned at Lockport, in tlie State of New York, under an indictment for murder, alleged 
to have been committed by him in the attack on, and destruction of, the steamboat Caro ■ 
line, at Schlosser, in that State, on the night of the 29th of December, 1837 ; and his trial 
is expected to take place at Lockport, on the 22d instant. 

You are apprised of tlie correspondence which took place between Mr. Forsy the, lata 
Secretary of State, and Mr. Fox, her Britannic Majesty's minister here, on this subject, 
in December last. 

In his note to Mr. Fox, of the 26th of that month, Mr. Forsylhe says: "If the de- 
struction of the Carohne was a pubUc act, of persons in her Majesty's service, obeying 
the order of their superior authorities, this foct has not been before communicated to the 
Government of the United States, by a person authorized to make the admission ; and 
it will be for the court, which has taken cognizance of the offence with which Mr. 
McLeod is charged, to decide upon its validity when legally established before it. 

The President deems this to be a proper occasion to remind the Government of her 
Britannic Majesty, that the case of the Caroline has been long since brought to the at- 
tention of her Majesty's ]>rincipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, up to 
this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. It is hoped that the Goverment 
of her Majesty will perceive the importance of no longer leaving the Government of the 
United States uninformed of its views and intentions, upon a subject which has naturally 
produced much exasperation, and which has led to such grave consequences. 

I have now to inform you that Mr. Fox has addressed a note to this department, 
under date of the 12th instant, in which, under the immediate instruction and direction 
of his Government, he demands, formally and officially, Mr. McLeod's release, on the 
ground that this transaction, on account of which he has been arrested and is to be pu- 
upon his trial, was of a public character, planned and executed by persons duly empowj 
ered by her Majesty's colonial authorities, to take any steps, and to do any acts, which 
might be necessary for the defence of her Majesty's territories, and for the protection ot 
her Majesty's subjects; and that, consequently, those subjects of her Majesty who en- 
gaged in that transaction were performing an act of public duty, for whicii they cannot; 
be made personally and individually answerable to the laws and tribunals of any foreiga 
country; and that her Majesty's Government has further directed Mr. F'ox to make 
known to the United States, that her Majesty's Government entirely ai>proved ot the 
course pursued by Mr. Fox, and the language adopted by him in the correspondence 
above mentioned. t* • • i r< 

There is, therefore, now an authentic declaration on the oEurt of the British Govern- 
ment, that the attack on the Caroline v/as an act of public force, done liy- military men, 



under the orders of their superiors, and is recognised as such by the Clueen's Govern- 
ment. The importance of this declaration is not to be doubted, and the President is of 
opinion that it calls upon him for the performance of a high duty. That an individual 
forming part of a public force, and acting under the authority of his Government, is not 
to be held answerable as a private trespasser or malefactor, is a principle of public 
law, sanctioned by the usages of all civilized nations, and which the Government of the 
United States has no inclination to dispute. This has no connexion whatever with the 
question, whether, in this case, this attack on the Caroline was, as the British Govern- 
ment thinks it, a justifiable employment of force, for the purpose of defending the British 
territory from an unprovoked attack, or whether it was a most unjustifiable invasion, in 
time of peace, of the territory of the United States, as this Government has regarded it. 
The two questions are essentially different, and, while acknowledging that an individual 
may claim immunity from the' consequences of acts done by him, by showing that he 
acted under national authority, this Government is not to be understood as changing the 
opinions which it has heretofore expressed in regard to the i-eal nature of the transac- 
tion which resulted in the destruction of the Cai-olinS. That subject it is not necessary 
for any purpose connected with this communication to discuss. The views of this Go- 
vernment in relation to it are known to that of England ; and _we are expecting the an- 
swer of that Government to the communication which has been made to it. 

All that is intended to be said at present is, that since the attack on the Caroline is 
avowed as a national act which may justify reprisals, or even general war, if the Govern- 
ment of the United States, in the judgment which it shall form of the transaction and of 
its own duty, should see fit so to decide, yet that it raises a question entirely public and 
political — a question between independent nations — and that individuals connected in it 
cannot be arrested and tried before the ordinary tribunals, as for the violation of muni- 
cipal law. If the attack on the Caroline was unjustifiable, as this Government has as- 
serted, the law which has been violated is the law of nations ; and the redress which ia 
to be sought is the redress authorized, in such cases, by the provisions of that code. 

You are well aware that the President lias no power to arrest the proceeding in the 
civil and criminal courts of the State of New York. If this indictment were pending in 
one of the courts of the United States, I am directed to say that the President, upon the 
receipt of Mr. Fox's last communication, would have immediately directed a nolle pro~ 
sequi to be entered. 

Whether in this case the Governor of New York have that power, or, if he have, 
whether he would feel it his duty to exercise it, are points upon which we are not in- 
formed. 

It is understood that Mr. McLeod is holden also on civil process, sued out against 
him by the owner of the Caroline. We suppose it very clear that the Executive of the 
State cannot interfere with such process ; and, indeed, if such process were pending in 
the courts of the United States, the President could not arrest it. In such, and many 
analogous cases, the party prosecuted, or sued, must avail himself of his exemption or 
defence, by judicial proceedings, either into the court into which he is called, or in some 
other court. But whether the process be criminal or civil, the fact of having acted under 
public authority, and in obedience to the orders of lawful superiors, must be regarded as 
a vahd defence; otherwise, individuals would beholden responsible for injuries resulting 
from the acts of Government, and even from the operations of public war. 



VII. 

Mr. Wheaton to Mr. Webster. ■ 

Berlin, Aoremfter 15, 1842. 

Sir: Your despatch No. 3G, enclosing: copy of the treaty recently concluded at Wash- 
juigton, between the United States and Great Britain, has just reached me. I beg leave 
to congratulate you, sir, on the happy termination of this arduous negotiation, in which 
the rights, honor, and interests of our country have been so successfully maintained. 
The arrangement it contains on the subject of the African slave trade is particularly satis- 
factory, as adapted to secure the end proposed by the only means consistent with our 
maritime rights. This arrangement has decided the course of the French Government 
' in respect to this matter. Its ambassador in London notified to the conference of the five 



great powers the final determination of France not to ratify the treaty of December, 1841,', 
ajid, at the same time, expressed her disposition to fulfil tlie stipulations of the separate 
treaties of 1831 and 1834, between her and Great Britain. The treaty of 1841, there- 
fore, now subsists only between four of the great powers by whom it was originally con- 
cluded; and as three of these (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) are very little concerned in 
the navigation of the ocean and the trade in the African seas, and have, besides, taken 
precautions in the treaty itself to secure thcii' commerce from interRiption by the exer- 
cise of the right of search in other parts, this compact may now be considered as almost 
a dead letter. 

The policy of the United States may consequently be said, on this occasion, perliapa 
for the first time, to have had a most decisive influence on that of Europe. This will 
probably more frequendy occur hereafter; and it should be an encour£igement to us to 
cultivate our maritime resources, and to strengthen our naval arm, by which alone we^ 
are known and felt among the nations of the earth. 



VIII. 



Washington Treaty.— [Extract.] 

Article VIII. — The parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, ani 
maintain in service, on the coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval 
force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty 
guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of 
the two countries, for tlie suppression of the slave trade; the said squadrons to be inde- 
pendent of each other, but the two Governments stipulating nevertheless to give such orders 
to the officers commanding their respective forces as shaH enable them most effectually to 
act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for 
the attainment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders to be communi- 
cated by each Government to the other respectively. 

Article IX. Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which may be made on the coast 
of Africa for suppressing the slave trade, the facilities for carrying on that traffic and 
avoiding the vigilance of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and other means, are 
so great, and the temptations for pursuing it, while a market can be found for slaves, so 
stropg, as that the desired result may be long delayed, unless all markets be shut against 
the nurchase of African negroes, the parties to this treaty eigreethat they will unite in 
all becoming representations and remonstrance^ with any and all Powers within whose 
dominions such markets are allowed to exist ; and that they will urge upon all such Pow- 
ers the propriety and duty of closing such markets effectually, at once and forever. 



Convention between Her Majesty and tlie King of the French for the suppression of the traffic 
in slaves. — [Extract.] 

Article 1.— In order that the flags of Her Majesty the Clueen of the United King- 
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of His Majesty the King of the French, may not, 
contrary to the law of nations and the laws in force in the two countries, be usurped to 
cover the slave trade, and in order to puovide for the more effectual suppression of that 
traffic. His Majesty the King of the French engages, as soon as may be practicable, to . 
station on the West Coast of Africa, from Cape Verd to 16° 30' south latitude, a naval 
force of at least twenty-six cruizers, consisting of sailing and steam-vessels; and Her 
Majesty the Q,ueen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland engages, as 
soon as may be practicable, to station on the same part of the West Coast of Africa a 
naval force of not less than twenty-six cruizers, consisting of sailing vessels and steam- 
vessels ; and on the East Coast of Africa such number of cruizers as -Her Majesty shall 
judge sufficient for the prevention of the trade on that coast : which cruizers shall be em- 
ployed for the purposes above mentioned, in' conformity with the following stipulations. 

Article II. — The said British and French naval forces shall act in concert for the 
suppression of the slave trade. It will be their duty to watch strictly every part of the 
West Coast of Africa within the Umita described in Article I, where the slave trade i« 



82 

tarried on. For thi;^ purpose they shall exercise fully and completely all the powers vesteot 
in the crowns of Great Britain and France for tlie suppression of the slave trade, sub- 
ject only to the modifications hereinafter mentioned as to British and French ships. 

Article III. — ^The officers of Her Majesty the Clueen of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland, and of His Majesty the King of the French, having respec- 
tively the command of the squadrons of Great Britain and France, to be employed in 
carrying out this Convention, shall concert together as to the," best means of watching 
strictly the parts of the African coast before described, by selecting and defining the sta- 
tions, and committing the care thereof to Enghsh and French cruizers, jointly or sepa- 
rately, as may be deemed most expedient ; provided always, that in case of a station be- 
ing specially committed to the charge of cruizers of either nation, the cruizers of the 
other nation may at any time enter the same for the purpose of exercising the rights re- 
spectively belonging to them for the suppression of the slave trade* 



IX. 

■ Mr. Webster to Lord ^shburton. 

Department of State, 

Washington, August 8, 1842. 

Mt Lord : We have had several conversations on the subject of impressment, but I 
>Ao not understand that your lordship has instructions from your Government to nego- 
tiate upon it, nor does the Government of the United States see any utility in opening 
such negotiation, unless the British Government is prepared to renounce the practice in 
all future wars. 

No cause has produced, to so great an extent, and for so long a period, disturbing emJ 
irritating influence on the political relations of the United States and England, as the im- 
pressment of seamen by British cruisers from American merchant vessels. 

From the commencement of the French revolution to the breaking out of the war be- 
tween the two countries in 1812, hardly a year elapsed without loud complaint and ear- 
nest remonstrance. A deep feeling of opposition to the right claimed, and to the practice 
exercised under it, and not unfrequently exercised without the least regai'd to what jus- 
tice and humanity would have dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, took 
possession of the public mind of America; and this feeling, it is well known, co-operated 
most powerfully with other causes to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. 

At different periods, both before and since the war, negotiations have taken place be- 
tween the two Governments, with the hope of finding some means of quieting these 
complaints. At some times, the effectual abolition of the practice has been requested 
and treated of ; at other times, its temporary suspension ; and, at other times, again, the 
limitation of its exercise, and some security against its enormous abuses. 

A common destiny has attended these efforts; they have all failed. The questiorz 
stands at this moment where it stood fifty years ago. The nearest approach to a settle- 
ment was a convention proposed in 1803, and which had come to tlie point of signature, 
-when it was broken off in consequence of the British Goverimient insisting that the nar- 
roio seas should be expressly excepted out of the sphere over which the contemplated.' 
stipulations against impressment should extend. The American minister, Mr. King, re- 
garded this exception as quite inadmissible, and those rather to abandon the negotiation 
than to acquiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. 

England asserts the right of impressing British subjects, in time of war, out of neutral 
merchant vessels, and of deciding by her visiting officers, who, among the crews of such 
merchant vessels, are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal exercise of the prero- 
gative of the crown ; which prerogative is alleged to be founded on the English law of 
the perpetual and indissoluble allegiance of the subject, and his obligation, under all cir- 
cumstances, and for his whole life^to render military service to the crown whenever re- 
cjuired. 

This statement, made in the words of eminent British jurists, shows, at once, that the 
English claim is far broader than the basis or platform on which it is raised. The law 
telied on is English law; the obligations insisted on are obligations existing between the 
crown of England and its subjects. This law and these obligations, it is admitted, may 



83 

■be such as England may choose they shall be. But then they must be confined io 
the parties. Impressment of seamen, out of and beyond English territory, and from 
on board the ships of other nations, is an interference with the rights of other nations; 
is further, therefore, than English prerogative can legally extend ; and is nothing 
but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of England beyond the dominions and 
jurisdiction of the crown. The claim asserts an extra-territorial authority for the 
law of British prerogative, and assumes to exercise this extra-territorial authority 
to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens and subjects of other States, oa 
board their own vessels on the high seas. 

Every merchant vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as part of the territory of 
the country to which it belongs. The entry, therefore, into such vessel, being neutral, 
by a belligerant, is an act of force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a trespass, which caa 
be justified only when done for some purpose, allowed to form a sufficient justification 
by the law of nations. But a British cruiser enters an American merchant vessel in or- 
der to take therefrom supposed British subjects ; offering no justification therefor, under 
the law of nations, but claiming the right under the law of England respecting the King's 
prerogative. This cannot be defended. English soil, English territory, English juris- 
diction, is the appropriate sphere for the operation of English law. The ocean is the 
sphere of the law of nations ; and any merchant vessel on the seas is, by that law, un- 
der the protection of the laws of her own nation, and may claim immunity, unless ia 
cases in which that law allows her to be entered or visited. 

If this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent power of the prerogative, 
was the law of the world ; if it formed part of the conventional code of nations, and. 
was usually practised like the right of visiting neutral ships, for the purpose of discover- 
mg and seizing enemy property, then impressment might be defended as a commoa 
right, and there would be no remedy for the evil till the national code should be altered. 
But this is by no means the case. There is no such principle incorporated into the code 
of nations. The doctrine stands only as English law — not as national law ; and Enghsh 
law can not be of force beyond English dominion. Whatever duties or relations that 
law creates between the sovereign and his subjects, can be enforced and maintained only 
■within the realm, or proper possessions or territory of the sovereign. There may be 
quite as just a prerogative right to the property of subjects as to their personal services, 
in an exigency of the State ;"but no Government thinks of controlling by its own laws 
property of its subjects situated abroad; much less does any Government think of en- 
tering the territory of another power for the purpose of seizing such property and apply- 
ing it to its own uses. As laws, the prerogatives of the crown of England have no obli- 
gation on persons or property domiciled or situated abroad. 

"When, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unregarded on either side of 
the Atlantic, "we speak of the right of a State to bind its own native subjects every 
■where, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over them, when 
they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, and not of its right to compel or re- 
quire obedience to such laws, on the part of other nations, v/ithin their own territorial 
sovereignty. On the contrary, every nation has an exclusive right to i-egulate persons 
and things within its own territory, according to its sovereign will and public polity." 

The good sense of these principles, their remarkable pertinency to the subject now 
under consideration, and the extraordinary consequences resultmg from the British doc- 
trine, are signally manifested by that which we see taking place every day. England 
acknowledges herself over-burdened with population of the poorer classes. Every in- 
stance of the emigration of persons of those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. Eng- 
land, therefore, encourages emigration ; means are notoriously supplied to emigrants to 
assist their conveyance, from public funds ; and the new world, and most especi.illy 
these United States, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus ejected from the 
bosom of their native land by the necessities of their condition. They come away from 
poverty and distress, in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, comfort, and new 
homes, in a country of free institutions, possessed by a kindred race, speaking their own 
language, and having laws and usages in many respects like those to which they have 
been accustomed ; and a country which, upon the whole, is found to possess more attrac- 
tions for persons of their character and condition than any other on tlie face of the globe. 
It is stated that, in the quarter of the year ending with June last, more than twenty-six 
thousand emigrants left the single port of Liverpool for the United States, being four or 
:five times as many as left the same port within the same period for the British colonies 
and all other parts of the world. Of these crowds of emigrants, many arrive in our^i- 



■ 84 

ties in circumstances of great' destitution, and the charities of the country, both public 
and private, are severely taxed . to relieve their immediate wants. In time they mingle 
with the new community in which they find themselves, and seek means of living ; some 
find employment in the cities, others go to tlie frontiers, to cultivated lands reclaimed 
from the forest, and a greater or less number of the residue, becoming in tnne natural- 
ized citizens, enter into the merchant service, under the flag of their adopted country. 

Now, my lord, if war should break out between England and a European power, 
can any thing be more unjust, any thing more irreconcilable to the general sentiments 
of mankind, than that England should seek out these persons, thus encouraged by her, 
and compelled by their own condition to leave their native homes, tear them away from 
their new employments, their new political relations, and their domestic connexions, 
and force them to undergo the dangers and hardships of military service, for a country 
which has thus ceased to be their own country? Certainly, certainly, my lord, there 
can be but one answer to this question. Is it not far more reasonable that England 
should either prevent such emigration of her subjects, or that, if she encourage and pro- 
mote it, she should leave them not to the embroilment of a double and a contradictory 
allegiance, but to their own voluntary choice, to form such relations, political or social, 
as they see fit in the country wliere they are to find their bread, and to the laws and m- 
stitutions of which they are to look for defence and protection ? 

A question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. If the United 
States give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of England annually casts 
upon their shores — if, by the benign influences of their Government and institutions, 
and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty 
to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in 
the enjoyment of all civil rights— if all this may be done, (and allthis is done, under the 
countenance and encouragement of England herself,) is it not high time, my lord, that, 
yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas, as inconsistent with the present state 
of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the old 
world and the new, England should at length formally disclaim all rigli.t to the services 
of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct ' 

But impressment is subject to objections of a much wider range. If it could be justi- 
fied in its appUcation to those who are declared to be its only objects, it still remains true 
that, in its exercise, it touches the political rights of other Governments, and endangers 
the security of their own native subjects and citizens. The sovereignty of the State is 
concerned in maintaining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its merchant ships 
on the seas, except so far as the law of nations justifies intrusion upon that possession 
for special purposes ; and all experience has shown that no member of a crew, wherever 
born, is safe against impressment when a ship is visited. 

The evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can hardly be overstated, and 
have ever proved themselves to be such as should lead to its relinquishment, even if it 
were founded in any defensible principle. The difficulty of discriminating between Eng- 
lish subjects and American citizens has always been found to be great, even when an hon- 
est purpose of discrimination has existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having 
necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and his decisions will be quite as sig- 
nificant of his own wants and iiis own power as of the truth and justice of the case. An 
extract from a letter of Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to the American Secretary 
of State, shows something of the enormous extent of these wrongful seizures : 

" Instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal cases, I have," says he, 
" since the month of July past, made application for the discharge, from British men-of- 
war, of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, stating themselves to be Americans, 
have claimed my interference. Of this number eighty-six have been ordered by the 
Admiralty to be discharged, thirty-seven more have been detained as British subjects or 
as American volunteers, or for want of proof that they are Americans, and to my appli- 
cations for the discharge of the remaining one hundred and forty-eight, I have received 
no answer — the ships on board of which these seamen were detained having, in many- 
instances, sailed before an examination was made in consequence of my application. 

" It is certain that some of those who have applied to me are not American citizens, 
but the exceptions are in my opinion few, and the evidence, exclusive of certificaes, has 
been such as, in most cases, to satisfy me that the applicants were real Americans, who 
have been forced into tVe British service, and who, with singular constancy, have gene- 
rally persevered in refusing pay or bounty, though in sonre instances they have been in. 
service more than two vears." 



85 

But the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to its immediate subjects 
or the individuals on whom it is practised. Vessels suffer from the weakening of their 
crews, and voyages are often delayed, and not unfrequently broken up, by subtraction 
from the number of necessary hands by impressment. And what is still of greater 
and more general moment, the fear of impressment has been found to create great diffi- 
culty in obtaining sailors for the American merchant service in times of European war. 
Seafaring men, otherwise inclined to enter into that service, are, as experience has 
shown, deterred by the fear of finding themselves ere long in compulsory military ser- 
vice in BritLsh ships of war. Many instances have occurred, fully established in proof, 
in which raw seamen, natives of the United Slates, fresh from the fields of agriculture, 
entering for the first time on shipboard, have been impressed before they made the land, 
placed'on the decks of British men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before they 
could obtain their release, or revisit their country or their homes. Such instances be- 
come known, and their effect in discouraging young men in engaging in the merchant 
service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered at. More than all, my 
lord, the practice of impressment, whenever it has existed, has produced not concilia- 
tion and good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, and animosity, between the two 
great commercial countries of the world. 

In the calm and quiet which succeeded the late war — a condition so favorable for dis- 
passionate consideration — England herself has evidently seen the harshness of impress- 
ment, even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service, and she has adopt- 
ed measures calculated, if not to renounce the power or to abolish the practice, at least 
to supersede its necessity by other means of manning the royal navy, more compatible 
with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit and sen- 
timentsof the age. 

Under these circumstances, the. Government of the United States has used the occa- 
sion of your lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, and to bring it to 
your notice and that of your Government. It has reflected on the past, pondered the 
condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, so far as might be m its power, 
the probable future; and I am now to communicate to your lordship the result of these 
deliberations. 

The American Government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of impressing 
seamen from American vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place. That practice 
is founded on principles which it does not recognise, and is invariably attended by con- 
sequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be sub- 
mitted to. 

In the eai-ly disputes between the two Governments on this so long-contested topic, 
the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of this Depart- 
ment declared, that " the simplest rule will be, that the vessel, being American, shall be 
evidence that the seamen on board are such." 

Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful reconsid- 
eration now had of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions are lend, and no 
present interest or emergency exists t,o bias the judgment, have fully convinced this Gov- 
ernment that this is not only the simplest and best, but the only rule which can be 
adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and honor of the United States, and 
the security of their citizens. That rulf. announces, therefore, what will here- 
after BE THE PRINCIPLE MAINTAINED BT THEIR GOVERNMENT. In EVERY REGULARLY 
rOClMENTED AMERICAN MERCHANT VESSEL THE CREW WHO NAVIGATE IT WILL FIND 
THEIR PROTECTION IN THE FLAG WHICH IS OVER THEM. 

. This announcement is not made, my lord, to revive 'useless recollections of the past, 
nor to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great degree, sniothered by 
many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires effectu- 
ally before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. The communication is in the 
spirit of peace, and for the sake of peace ; and springs from a deep and conscientious 
conviction, that high interests of both nations require that this so long-contested and 
controverted subject should now be finally put to rest. I persuade myself, my lord, 
that you will do justice to this frank aind sincere avowal of motives ; and that you will 
communicate your sentiments, in tliis respect, to your Government. 

This letter closes, my lord, on my part, our official correspondence ; and I gladly use 
the occasion to offer to you the eissurance of my high and sincere regard. 
^^ - DANIEL WEBSTER. 

LOffd AsHEURTOiJ, ^C, SfC., ifc- 



r w 8 



*! 

** 



0\ 




^ i^ ^ "^ 



S 



Fold-out 
Placeholder 



This fold-out is being digitized, and will be inserted a 

future date. 




Fold-out 
Placeholder 



This fold-out is being digitized, and will be inserted at ; 

future date. 






.^ 






> 



"-^^o^ 



.0, 

















>M BOOKBr>t5lNC I 
Am Ct-v I sa B 

C.JW k"" -.^? ■-« n 



